1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff falling under the above part of the revocation.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2013, H, a major shareholder of the Plaintiff, appointed E at the Plaintiff’s temporary general meeting of shareholders as the Plaintiff’s representative director.

On the other hand, on December 24, 2012, E entered into a contract to acquire a F 7th health club (hereinafter “instant health club”).

B. On January 4, 2013, H, the Plaintiff’s major shareholder, borne 330,000,000 won for the acquisition of the instant health club by E and H, etc., and E agreed to operate the instant health club as the Plaintiff’s representative director.

(hereinafter “instant arrangement”). On January 1, 2013, H borne the instant health club acquisition cost of KRW 142,500,000, deposit for lease, KRW 150,000,00, etc.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 28,50,000 to Defendant B, the radars of the health club, and KRW 35,008,010 to Defendant C, from February 2, 2013 to January 2014, respectively, and KRW 35,625,00 to Defendant D, from February 2013 to April 2014.

(hereinafter “each of the instant money”). In addition, from February 2013 to February 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,550,000 in total of the rent for the building used by the Defendants as a lodging house.

(hereinafter “instant rent”) D.

On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred all rights, such as the right to lease, goodwill, partial fixtures, and fixtures, to E, to KRW 126,350,000, but (b) concluded a contract for the transfer of the instant health club (facilities) with the purport that E shall substitute the amount already paid, in lieu of the amount already paid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 9, 10, 11, and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the Plaintiff’s primary assertion, the Plaintiff is operating the health club in this case with E and the Defendants, and the profits are distributed to Plaintiff 50%, Defendants, and 50%. However, even though there was no profits, the Defendants received each of the funds and rents from the Plaintiff, so long as the same business relationship is terminated, the Defendants are concerned with each of the funds in this case.