1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Attached to the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the basic facts are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “E” to “H” and “E” to “E” to “H”, and the third, 17, and 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance [based on recognition] to the part of “B” as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) On June 2, 2007, Defendant A and B led to the confession of each possession under a sub-lease contract, and there is no evidence to deem that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake). The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim is as follows: “The 7th of June 2007,” “Defendant G” in the 5th 16th 5th 16th 16th 3th 3th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 4th 7th 7th 4th 7th 7th 4th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 4th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 4th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 13006th 7th 7th 7th 7th 800.

C. As to Defendant A and B’s assertion, Defendant A and B sought to transfer each of the instant real estate on the ground that the partnership group did not have any entity to exclude the right of lease such as name, etc., and the right of lease such as Defendant A and B. Thus, this constitutes abuse of legal personality and abuse of rights, and thus, it should be deemed as denying the Plaintiff’s legal personality or as the same company as the partnership group. This does not so.

However, around June 2013, a partner group made a false sale or trust of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.