Defendant D’s Plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff A and C requested in the first instance court to refuse compulsory execution based on the No. 1 Bill. The first instance court accepted part of the Plaintiffs’ claims and rejected compulsory execution based on the No. 1 Bill No. 1,038,133,039 won and the portion exceeding the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from May 3, 2014 to the date of full payment. The Plaintiffs dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claims. The Plaintiffs appealed against the above part. Accordingly, the scope of the first instance court’s judgment is limited to the portion which the said Plaintiffs lost. (b) The part against Defendant D requested in the first instance court to refuse compulsory execution based on the No. 2 Bill No. 1,038,504,230, and the part of the first instance court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claims for compulsory execution based on the No. 25% interest rate from May 20, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appealed against the above part of the judgment against them, and the defendant D filed an incidental appeal to the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance as to "798,256,134 won based on the Notarial Deed of Bill No. 2, and the part of compulsory execution up to the delay damages" among the parts against the defendant D of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as the above incidental appeal during the trial.

The scope of a trial by the court of first instance is the part that seeks the denial of compulsory execution based on the No. 2 Bill No. 3 within the scope of objection.

2. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2011, Defendant D’s primary loan (nameed KRW 2.5 billion, real KRW 2 billion) as a broker of F, Defendant D’s KRW 1.5 billion (real quality KRW 1 billion), and Defendant G Co., Ltd (hereinafter “G”) leased KRW 1 billion to each Plaintiff A as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “the first loan”) 1F on May 2, 201 and Plaintiff A.