1. The defendants' appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The return of the appeal cost shall be the provisional payment.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment (the part related to the claim for partial payment and the claim for partial payment) except to either dismiss some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows or add the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendants' request for provisional payment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the 6th page 2, the “Defendant B’s seal imprint portion” is considered as the “Defendant B’s seal imprint portion” and the “F’s seal imprint portion of the corporate seal impression operated by it.”

Part 6, "Nos. 5-5, 8, and 6-3 of the evidence of No. 5-5" is deemed to be "Evidence No. 5-4 through 9, 6-2, 3, and 11 of the evidence of No. 5-5."

Part 8. From the first half to the 8.9 letter "A letter of order to submit documents to the South Daegu Daigu Dairy Bank of this Court" shall be "the results of the Financial Transaction Information Restatement to the director of the Nam Daegu District of the first instance."

The date of pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court shall be "the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court" in the 9th and 10th and 7th.

2. Under the premise that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants regarding “(i) claim” and “(ii) claim” against the Defendants is revoked, the Defendants seek the return of the provisional payment as to the remainder other than the amount recognized in the judgment of the court of first instance, which was received by the Defendants based on provisional execution of the judgment of the court of first instance.

However, as a result of the trial of the court of first instance maintained the judgment of the court of first instance, since the part against the above Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance was not revoked even if part of it was not revoked, the declaration of provisional execution of the court of first instance was not invalidated. Therefore, the defendants' request for the return of provisional payment with the nature of the preliminary counterclaim is without merit

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's "(1)" and "(2)" against the defendants are within the scope of the above recognition.