1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the sales balance stipulated in the instant sales contract was KRW 100,000,000 and additionally received KRW 100,000 as the remainder of the sales.

In light of the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) from October 13, 2010 to March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to bear interest on loans to Defendant C (hereinafter “NF”); (b) the Plaintiff’s interest on loans to the LAF from October 13, 2010 to the LAF incurred by the Defendants from October 13, 201; and (c) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, E, and F, paid KRW 30,210,00 to the Defendant C as the interest on loans to the LAF from September 25, 2010 to January 24, 201; (d) determined as follows: (e) the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,70,000 to the Defendant C; (e) the amount of interest on loans to the LAFF from February 28, 2011 to KRW 10,300,0000; and (e) the amount of interest paid to the Defendants KRW 10810,50,1081,20

B. The Defendants asserted in the grounds of appeal that: (a) the Plaintiff, E, and F paid KRW 30,210,000 to Defendant C from September 25, 201 to January 24, 201; (b) the amount of loan interest on the so-called so-called so-called 57,975,002 won is also 57,975,002 won; and (c) E transferred KRW 13,70,000 to Defendant C on March 2, 201; and (d) the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

C. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, 30,210,000 won paid to Defendant C from September 25, 201 to January 24, 201, all of the Plaintiff, E, and F, to the LA.