1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasons to be indicated in this case by the court of the first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the plaintiffs added the judgment as to the newly asserted contents by this court as Paragraph 2, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the Plaintiffs’ additional assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the completion of the statute of limitations against their claims against the Defendants is remarkably unfair and unfair, and thus, the defendants' claim for the completion of the statute of limitations is not allowed as abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone alone contradicts the principle of good faith.

It is not sufficient to recognize that it constitutes an abuse of rights, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

B. Whether tort liability related to benz vehicles was established or not, on April 18, 2006, the plaintiffs transferred 100 million won to the non-party H's account under the plaintiff's name on April 18, 2006, and on June 14, 2006, the plaintiff transferred 50 million won to the defendant C's account under the plaintiff's name on June 14, 2006. The vehicles offered by the defendants were used as used vehicles, and the market price of which is 58 million won. As such, the defendant D deceivings the plaintiffs to purchase 160 million won from the market price to 160 million to 170 million to 170 million won, and acquired 150 million won in total as above, the defendant D is a tort, and the defendant C is a corporation or its representative's liability for tort.

Although it is recognized that there was a remittance of the contents claimed by the plaintiffs by the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 16 and 22, the above remittance is caused by the deception or tort of the defendants.