1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant H and J added by this court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part against the Defendants under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal of some content as follows.

Defendant B, “Defendant C” of not more than 11 on the 3rd judgment of the first instance court, “Defendant C” of not more than 12, “Defendant D” of “Codefendant C of the first instance court” and “Codefendant of the first instance court”, “Defendant E,” “Defendant F” of not more than 13, 14, “Codefendant E of the first instance court,” “Codefendant of the first instance court,” and “Defendant G” of not more than 14, “Codefendant of the first instance court,” respectively.

B. Each of the above Defendants’ “the co-defendants of the first instance court” in the 8th and 13th of the judgment of the first instance court is regarded as “the co-defendants of the first instance court.”

(c)each of the defendants in the first instance court’s 8th page 20, the last 11th page, and the first 12th page “the defendant” shall be read as “the defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court”;

In Part 12, part 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the results of each fact-finding with respect to the Korea AFF Round Office and the Korea Development Bank of Korea" are as follows: "the results of each fact-finding with respect to the Korea Development Bank of Korea and the Korea Development Bank of Korea" at the court of first instance.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant J and Defendant H’s husband, concluded a civil engineering work agreement with the deceased L and the instant land and a pent new construction work agreement with respect to each of the instant land, and subsequently settled false accounts in collusion with the deceased L in the manner of making it difficult to perform construction works, such as as as if they were engaged in construction works or as if they were actually performing construction works, or as if they were paid the construction costs, and then receiving part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff Company based on the false contract price claim, and subsequently, M completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land in accord and satisfaction as above in the future of Defendant H and Defendant J.

On the other hand, money was lent to the deceased L.