1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for partial amendments as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the part against the Codefendant J Codefendant Co., Ltd. in the first instance court which is separately determined is excluded).

8 pages 1 of the first instance judgment “A between the plaintiff and the defendant E, F, G, H, and I” shall be deleted.

B. The first instance judgment’s 8-6 acts are deleted.

C. The 11th 5th eth son of the judgment of the first instance is regarded as a witness of the first instance court.

The first instance court's 11th trial's "No. 24" is deemed to be "No. 24, 30-33".

E. The 13th 15th 15th son of the judgment of the first instance is regarded as a witness of the first instance court.

F. On September 26, 2016, the 17th two parallel of the judgment of the first instance, “ September 26, 2016” shall be deemed “ September 26, 2013.”

G. The following shall be added to the back of 7 pages of the judgment of the first instance.

Even if the period of repayment of the secured claim on each of the instant real estate by Plaintiffs A, B, and C arrives at the end of August, 2013, as alleged by the above plaintiffs, the evidence submitted by the above plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the above plaintiffs possessed each of the instant real estate before September 26, 2013 when the seizure of the instant real estate became effective due to the completion of the registration of the decision on commencing the auction of the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Thus, the above plaintiffs' request for the confirmation of lien against the Defendants of the above plaintiffs cannot be seen as either a mother or without merit.

【】

H. Each “Defendant” of the 17th 20th 20, 18th 2, and 5th 205 of the judgment of the first instance is all referred to as “Plaintiffs”.

2. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and thus, the plaintiffs' principal lawsuit and counterclaim is legitimate.