All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following contents, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420

2. The addition shall add the following between the 9th half and the 7th half of the judgment of the first instance.

[3] The Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant E did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out and lost their membership status as a person eligible for cash settlement following the expiration date of the period of application for parcelling-out. However, Defendant E concluded an agreement on the application for parcelling-out with the Defendant association and concluded an agreement on the application for parcelling-out with the Defendant association on June 30, 2015, and subsequently acquired the status of its membership again, and transferred it to the Plaintiff.

In addition, on October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the status of a member by concluding a sales contract separately with the Defendant union.

2) As to the first argument by the Defendants, after Defendant E became a person subject to cash settlement, Defendant E submitted a written consent to re-acquisition the status of a member during the new period for application for parcelling-out as stipulated in Article 9.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the circumstances such as the fact that there was a general meeting of the Defendant Union regarding the restoration of the status of Defendant E’s partner.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant E re-acquisitions the status of a member of the Defendant Association at the time of concluding the instant sales contract on the following grounds: (a) written evidence No. 11-2; (b) written evidence No. 11-2; and (c) written evidence No. 11; and (c) written fact inquiry conducted on March 4, 2019; (d) January 9, 2020; and (e) January 31, 2020.

Next, as to the second argument of the Defendants, it is difficult to believe that the Defendants’ statement No. 3 is difficult, and the statement and statement No. 5 are between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Union.