All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, found Defendant C to substantially operate Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”), but became a legal personality of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

or Defendant C could not be deemed to have abused the corporate personality of the Defendant Company.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the denial and abuse of legal personality without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the claim for return of unjust enrichment should be allowed on the ground that the first consulting agreement, which was null and void in violation of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, and that the service commission fee the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant Company pursuant to the above contract constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, and that such illegal cause is limited to the Defendant Company that

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obligation to return illegal consideration, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal relating to the secondary agreement, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, states that the confirmation of termination of claims and obligations (business) dated September 27, 2013 does not bear the obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant Company fees under the first consulting agreement with respect to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company does not bear the obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the consulting obligations under the said agreement.