1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff and H’s “Plaintiff” as “Plaintiff B and H” under the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ assertion emphasized in the trial are as follows, except for the addition of “the following additional determination” under the 2th sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (c) thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. In recent Jeju District Prosecutors' Office, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Defendant for fraud or embezzlement of KRW 130 million with respect to the instant KRW 130 million, and the Defendant's property damage caused by the Defendant's tort should have recently become aware that not only the instant KRW 130 million but also the market price of the instant land was equivalent.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription period for the damage claim against the Defendant by tort should commence from the time when the Plaintiffs came to know that the market price of the land of this case was the damage. Therefore, the extinctive prescription for the Plaintiffs’ damage claim against the Defendant was not completed.

B. The "date when he knows the damage and the perpetrator" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of the claim for damages by judgment, should be known as the occurrence of the damage and the perpetrator, and the harmful act should be known as a tort. In this case, in order to find it known of the occurrence of the damage, the damage must be actually and specifically recognized, but it is not necessary to say that the amount and degree of the damage were specifically known.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da11529, Nov. 23, 199). According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant, etc. on June 26, 2012, against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Gahap9353, and the Defendant was returned from J as the cause of the claim.