1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant of the purport of the claim shall each be the plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part 4, 18 of the first instance court's decision "Evidences 4 through 8, 13, 4 and 17 of the first instance court's "Evidences 4 through 8, 13 of the first instance court's judgment (including the number of pages 4 through 8, 13 of the first instance court's judgment; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 4 and 17 of the first instance court's "Nos. 5 through 7 of the first instance court's judgment, and Eul evidence Nos. 17 of the second instance court's judgment's judgment (the defendant asserted that evidence Nos. 5 through 7 of the second instance court'

Part 5 of the decision of the first instance court, the statement of "the statement of the deduction of the FF cost for large-scale repair works by the Government" in Part 13 of the decision of the first instance is "the statement of the settlement of the FF cost for large-scale repair works by the Government"

At the end of the fifthth sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

The testimony of the J witness of the party against this issue is difficult to believe that the testimony of the J witness of the party against this issue is not in good faith in light of the statements in Gap evidence 8 and Eul evidence 4. The part of the 6th court's ruling of the first instance court to 11th to 16th court's ruling is as follows.

④ Around June 30, 2012, the Defendant sold to K the KRW 1,100,000,000 of the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu L land and ground buildings. On the premise that H et al. kept 150,000,000, out of the purchase price, directly received from K, and used the large-scale repair construction cost of the instant building as construction cost pursuant to the agreement that H et al. would substitute for the payment of the construction cost, the Defendant asserts that H et al. did not have any money actually borrowed from the deceased A.

However, it is difficult to believe that each statement of Nos. 1 and 10, which seems consistent with the above alleged facts, is difficult to believe in light of the respective statements of No. 13, etc., and as seen earlier, according to the phrase of the loan certificate of this case, the defendant appears to have received money from the deceased Gap, and the defendant stated No. 6, as stated above.