1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. According to the record as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal, since the documents of lawsuit, including a copy of the complaint of the first instance, and the original copy of the judgment, were served to the Defendants by means of service by public notice, and the Defendants became aware of the fact that the Defendants knew of the lawsuit of this case and the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance, they can be recognized that the subsequent appeal of this case was filed within two weeks after the Defendants

2. Basic facts

A. On July 2010, L, which is the actual co-owner of 554.7 square meters in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, is the owner of K, Defendant C, and F, and F, and L, which is the owner of 347.9 square meters, entered into a construction contract with D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to construct a M building (hereinafter “instant building”) in the same manner as the attached Form on the ground of each of the above land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Since then, the instant building was constructed on the second and sixth underground floors. Two underground floors are underground parking lots, with the first floor from 101 to 107, 201, 202, 203, 301 to 304, 401, 501, and 601, respectively.

C. On January 13, 2012, the instant building obtained approval for use on or around January 13, 2012, each of the above partitioned buildings was registered for each of them as K (0.3864), L (0.4848), and Defendant C (0.1288) co-ownership on June 8, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 7, 9, 11 (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to Defendant C on March 31, 201, and loaned KRW 20 million to Defendant B on May 3, 2012, KRW 300,000,000 to Defendant B on May 31, 2012, KRW 300,000,000 on May 31, 2012, and KRW 4.8 million on March 11, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties. (2) According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, Defendant C, KRW 10,000,000, KRW 4.8 million, and damages for delay.