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. The reasons why the court cited the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) it is identical to the part against the Defendants in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases determined in paragraph (3) above, as to the assertion added or emphasized again by the Defendants in this court (excluding the conclusion portion), and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Of the judgment of the first instance court, “Defendant B, etc.” in the part written by the court of first instance is both “Defendant D” and “Defendant D”.

Part 14-8 of the first instance court's decision is as follows.

B) The Defendants asserted that the instant payment declaration was purported to allow the Plaintiff to exercise the Defendants’ claim for return of unjust enrichment against J, or that the said declaration was made on condition that H would have made a purchase and sale of real estate at the same time, and that the said condition was not added to the Plaintiff’s payment by mistake. The Defendants asserted that the declaration of intent may be revoked in a case where there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, and that if there is an error in the motive for the declaration of intent, the declaration of intent may be revoked only when the parties would have taken the motive into account as the content of the declaration of intent, and that the mistake in the important part of a juristic act should be deemed as important to the extent that the ar would not have made the declaration of intent if there was no such an error, and that the said mistake would have been deemed as important to the extent that the ar would not have made such declaration of intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 297Da21974, Sept. 30, 1997).