1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the costs of KRW 66,448,929 against the Plaintiff jointly with the Defendant A and C and those related thereto are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The reasons why the Korean court should explain the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A and C in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the pertinent part concerning the above defendants shall be cited, and the following are the following:

(b) add some phrases, such as the description;

[Defendant C also argues that the Plaintiff’s work manager also violated the regulations in the course of funding, and that the negligence set-off is asserted. However, considering the overall purport of arguments as to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff caused damage to the Plaintiff by an intentional tort. It is not allowed to assert that the person who committed an intentional intentional tort due to the victim’s negligence based on the victim’s negligence was reduced his/her own responsibility on the ground of the victim’s negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32999, Jun. 14, 2007). There is no special circumstance to recognize a set-off of negligence (the Supreme Court Decision cited by Defendant C is entirely different from the case, and it is not appropriate to apply the legal principle in this case

A) Defendant C’s assertion is rejected. Meanwhile, even if Defendant A and B received the purchase fund of the instant land No. 1 by unlawful means, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff may seek a penalty pursuant to Article 10(6) of the sales contract prepared with Defendant A and Article 8 of the sales contract prepared with Defendant B, even if the contract was not rescinded. However, all of the provisions stipulate that “if the contract is rescinded, if only a penalty is provided for,” it cannot be interpreted by analogy in favor of the Plaintiff, who is the originator, as long as the said sales contract that constitutes a kind of terms and conditions, cannot be interpreted by analogy in favor of the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da79644, Aug. 25, 2011).”