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 reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Defendants of the judgment of the first instance are indicated in the corresponding part of the judgment, except for the addition of the following items after the 8th of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, (b) the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The Defendant asserts to the effect that “The offset against the damage claim arising from an intentional tort is prohibited, but it is possible to offset against the damage claim arising from an intentional tort against the automatic claim. Even if the Defendants’ act of receiving money under the pretext of external expenses constitutes embezzlement, Defendant C had the loan claim against the Plaintiff, which much exceeds the amount of the above damage claim. At the time of the above embezzlement, Defendant C was the representative director of the Plaintiff, and Defendant D was the Defendants’ respective representative director, and thus, the above damage claim against the Defendants and the above loan claim against the Defendants against the Defendants was implicitly offset and extinguished at the time of receiving the above amount of the external expenses (Article 493(1) of the Civil Act), barring any special agreement that the Defendants’ act of offering money under the pretext of external expenses constitutes an offset against each other, it is possible to set off against the Defendants’ damages claim against the Defendants (Article 493(1) of the Civil Act), and it is also possible to deem that the claim under the offset against the Plaintiff’s automatic act has an effect of set-off without a separate declaration of intent.

However, there is a problem.