All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the remainder.

1. The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed, supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) by Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) are examined. A. The grounds of appeal by Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) are examined.

Plaintiff

As to A’s claim for the return of unfair brokerage commission against Defendant D, this part of the ground of appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench’s finding of facts as to whether Defendant D received much amount of brokerage commission for lending from Plaintiff A, and ultimately, it is not legitimate ground of appeal.

In examining the record, it is difficult to view that the fact-finding by the court below exceeded the scope of reasonable free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

B. The allegation in the grounds of appeal concerning the claim for the return of the deposit amount against the Defendant F (Counterclaim Plaintiff) of the Plaintiff F (hereinafter “Defendant F”) and the claim for the return of the loan to the Plaintiff F against the Plaintiff, is alleged in the grounds of appeal. Defendant F lent KRW 100 million on June 29, 2007 to the Plaintiff, but received the return on July 24, 2007, and then dispute over the fact-finding of the lower court as to whether the Plaintiff F lent KRW 100 million on July 31, 2007 to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is difficult to view it as the ground of appeal, since it is merely a dispute over the selection of evidence and the fact-finding which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

In examining the record, it is difficult to view that the fact-finding by the court below exceeded the scope of reasonable free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

C. As to the claim for return of embezzlement against Defendant D by the Plaintiff Company, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is as follows: Defendant D’s 106, 107, 108, 109, 205, 206, 207, 208, 306, and 904 were delegated by the Plaintiff Company to trade under the Plaintiff Company’s heading 106, 107, 108, 109, 205, 206, 207, 208,