The defendants' appeals against the plaintiff Samsung C&T corporation and the plaintiff Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. are filed.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance is modified as stated in the following 2; and (b) it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following 3. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Revised parts

A. The Plaintiff’s “Plaintiffs” and the Plaintiff’s Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. for the following six pages: (a) revised Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. for the following reasons; and (b) revised Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. for the following reasons; (c) merged the above company on September 2, 2015, and comprehensively succeeds to the rights and obligations; and (d) the Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. for the first half of the merger changed its trade name to “T&T,” and the Plaintiff Samsung C&T Co., Ltd.

B. The 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th "Plaintiff Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Plaintiff Samsung C&T") was amended to "Plaintiff Samsung C&T."

C. The fact that, from May 201 to May 2012, 2011, the amended E-Re-building Project Association had been well aware of the amount borrowed from the Plaintiffs on several occasions by demanding the Plaintiffs to pay and receive the loans agreed upon in the instant contract in accordance with specific items, from May 2010 to May 2011, as follows:

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The Defendants asserted that C and D, which were directors of the E-building maintenance and improvement project association (hereinafter “instant association”), provided joint and several debt guarantee to the Plaintiffs of the instant association under the instant contract on April 21, 2010 is merely a formal form without actual intent to bear the debt, and thus constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants also nullify the disposition approving the establishment of the instant association at the time of March 4, 2013, which C and D donated real estate to the Defendants.