1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

Plaintiff

The plaintiff and the co-litigation intervenor's claims against the defendants are all made.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is the same as the part “1. Basic Facts” between the second and fifth pages of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the parts written or added as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The part to be used or added 【The third and fourth methods of the judgment of the court of first instance” shall be added “from July 2013.”

The third fifth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the report of dissolution was accepted on March 31, 2015") shall be applied to "the report of dissolution was accepted on March 31, 2015, and there is no other property owned as of the date of closing argument in the court of first instance."

The fourth sentence of the first instance court's decision "from April 15, 2016 to the date of full payment" shall be 15% per annum from April 15, 2016 to the date of full payment."

The third letter of the fifth decision of the court of first instance is amended by adding " January 13, 2016" to the following.

Part 5 of the 5th judgment of the first instance court "No. 2016 tea1622 of the above court's "The Seoul Central District Court" is "the payment order of 2016 tea1622 dated January 29, 2016".

Part 7 of the fifth judgment of the first instance court "Seoul Central District Court 2016TTT 6011" shall be amended to "Seoul Central District Court 2016TT 6011, April 1, 2016, and a collection order shall be issued."

2. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor of the Plaintiff’s co-litigation and the Intervenor of the Plaintiff’s co-litigation (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) seek confirmation that the claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit is against F by asserting the following:

(1) The actual operator of F entered into each of the instant assignment contracts in F’s name without authorization, without authorization, by an attorney H, a representative of F, and without authorization. The Defendants conspired with I to deduct the instant claim against F even though they did not have any claim against F. Thus, each of the instant assignment contracts is null and void.

See Furthermore, Defendant C operated F jointly with I, not attorneys-at-law.