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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants, and D’s joint business Defendants and D jointly operated a revolving her mutual bridge (hereinafter “this case’s initial bent”) with the name “H” from 207 and 208 (hereinafter “instant building”) of the G building located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul.

B. On August 2, 2007, the Plaintiff and D et al. (1) withdrawn 130 million won from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name of his wife and delivered it to D. (2) Meanwhile, on September 1, 2007, the Defendant B entered the lease agreement with the Plaintiff, setting the lease term from the joint lessor J, L, and M to the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million, monthly rent of the instant building, KRW 9 million, and the lease term from February 28, 2007 to February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the lease agreement with the Plaintiff as its joint lessee even though the Plaintiff was not the actual lessee.

3) Since September 6, 2007 to January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to receive a total of KRW 160,40,000 won in the name of “D”, “H”, “B”, and “C” in the name of “D”, “H”, “B” and “C” (based on recognition). There is no dispute, and Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the testimony of K witness of the first instance court, and the results of the order of submission of financial transaction information to the head of the ridge branch of the first instance court, the whole purport of the pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted on August 2, 2007 that the defendants and D agreed to pay interest of KRW 130 million per month and three years after the due date, and that the defendants and D agreed to jointly pay that amount to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Defendants asserted that D solely borrowed or invested money from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendants did not directly borrow or agreed to repay money from the Plaintiff.

B. Therefore, we examine the legal nature of KRW 130 million paid to D on August 2, 2007 by the Plaintiff.

The witness of the first instance court K is called K.