1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts of scraping;

(a) Each “95 million won” in five pages 7 shall be written by each “950 million won”.

B. Then, “It is reasonable to view that Defendant B affixed and sealed 6 pages 16.” Then, it is insufficient to recognize that the content of the contingent fee arrangement (Article 5) in the course of keeping with the employee seal of Defendant Foundation after obtaining the employee seal of Defendant Foundation from Defendant G from the director of the accounting division of Defendant Foundation, as argued by the Defendants, was affixed with the mind of the second agreement (Article 3-2) which is arbitrarily added. In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the delegation agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Foundation, including the contingent fee agreement, was agreed upon by Defendant B personally to harm joint and several sureties and direct signature and seal, and it is difficult to conclude that Defendant B did not jointly and severally guarantee the obligation of Defendant Foundation under the agreement, contrary to the agreement, the contingent fee agreement under Article 2 was not included in the contingent fee agreement.”

(c) 10 pages 7 to 15 shall be stated by the following formula:

In light of the language and text of the agreement Nos. 1 and 2, the facts acknowledged earlier, in particular, the time when the Plaintiff claims remuneration, etc. to the Defendant to make full payments to the Defendant side, and the attitude taken by the Defendant, etc., it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to postpone the payment time of remuneration, etc. until the “when the Defendant Foundation is activated” due to the occurrence of operating income of charnel houses of the Defendant Foundation, etc. As alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to postpone the payment time of remuneration, etc.