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

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

1. The reasons why this court shall explain concerning this part of the basic facts are either one of the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where “200,000,000 won was paid” as stated in Paragraph 6 of the same Article, which read “100,000 won among them, was paid, and the sum of KRW 250,000,000 was paid on October 26, 2010, which is different from the contents of the above confirmation,” and it is identical to that of the part against the Defendants in Paragraph 1 of the same Article, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The instant lease agreement was concluded by the co-defendant D (hereinafter “D”) in the first instance trial as a sales agent for Defendant C. Since it was impossible to implement the instant lease agreement due to Defendant C’s reasons, Defendant C, jointly and severally with the co-defendant E of the first instance court who agreed to return the money under D and the following, shall return the sum of KRW 385,000,000 paid to the Plaintiffs under the instant lease agreement (i.e., KRW 145,000,000 on February 19, 2010 to the Plaintiffs (i.e., KRW 50,000,000 on November 1, 201, KRW 50,000,000 on December 5, 2012).

Even if Defendant C is not in a lessor status, Defendant C is responsible as a lessor in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency because it was erroneous for Defendant C to leave the Plaintiff to act as a sales agent.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to return the above money to the Plaintiffs.

Considering the contrary, Defendant C, by advertising as if it were to sell profits that it would have newly built, had the Plaintiffs believe that Defendant C was a lessor, thereby concluding the instant lease agreement, and thus, Article 3(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Fair Labeling and Advertising Act”) is likely to undermine fair trade order as labeling and advertising that might deceive or mislead consumers, and thus, are likely to undermine the fair trade order.