[Supplementary or additional parts] Part 7-8 through 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as follows, and No. 9-14 shall be referred to as "the amount of compensation for non-performance of obligation".

The Plaintiff asserted that “(the Plaintiff’s repayment made by the Defendants’ discharge of its obligation, and thus, sought restitution of unjust enrichment. However, the Defendants did not perform the obligation to repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff, despite the fact that the Defendants had the obligation to repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, the obligor, pursuant to the agreement on each of the instant notes. As such, the Plaintiff incurred considerable damages due to the Plaintiff’s repayment of the principal and interest of the instant loan, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the said nonperformance of obligation.

(1)Nos. 14 and 8 of the judgment of the first instance court shall add the following to the following, and no. 9.5 of the same Act shall apply with regard to mutual aid and offset grounds "6)" and with regard to mutual aid and offset grounds.

[5) As to the Defendants’ assertion premised on the absence of the Defendants’ embezzlement, the Defendants revealed that the Defendants did not embezzled any embezzlement against the Defendants in another lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. As such, ① the Defendants either cancel the instant notes prepared on the premise that the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff’s profit, or cancel it on the ground of mistake, ② cancel or cancel the instant notes on the ground of such change of circumstance (to the effect that the contract was cancelled or cancelled on the premise that the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants pursuant to the instant notes).