1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims expanded and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows:

1. Acknowledgement and conclusion of the first instance judgment

A. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues) is sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows. The reasoning of this Court is as follows, and it is stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the judgment as to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is cited as a summary and the attached Form pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. If so, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable within the scope stated in the subsection (e) of "2." as stated in the following, each claim shall be accepted, and the remainder shall be dismissed on the grounds that there are no grounds.

The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, and it is so unfair as to modify the judgment of the court of first instance, including the claim extended and reduced in the appellate trial.

2. The ratio of "A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "H") in No. 2, No. 16-17, and No. 17, all "H" and "H" shall be incorporated into "G".

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "I") and the "I" in Part 1 of Part 3 of the "Special Metropolitan City Development Bank" shall be referred to as the "I".

The third 21st "Witness L" shall be taken into consideration as "the witness L of the first instance trial".

"The plaintiff also stated that "the principal was partially repaid from the time of the first payment order to the time of the first payment order, 125 million won, and even during the process of the instant case, the plaintiff did not submit the will document in the form of a authentic will after the plaintiff's questioning, and submitted it as evidence by the defendant." "The plaintiff also submitted the will document in the form of a authentic will after the plaintiff's questioning to the defendant," as the basis for the principal from the time of the first payment order.