1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Attached to the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except where the judgment on the newly asserted contents is added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The 4th 6-10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cut to the following.

“1) On August 18, 2010, a decision to commence a voluntary auction was made with respect to all of the instant HH real estate, and on April 20, 2012, K was sold to K. Defendant B, from July 26, 2013 to April 25, 2014, each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 6 through 11 (hereinafter referred to as “harbor”).

the purchase was made.

“Articles 7 through 10 “(10)” in the fourth and fourth parallel of the judgment of the first instance are “Articles 7 through 10-1.” The fifth parallel of the judgment of the first instance is “Article 10-2 and 11”. The fifth parallel of the judgment of the first instance is “Article 10-2 and 11.” The fourth and fifth parallel of the judgment of the first instance are “93 million won against Defendant D” and “85 million won against Defendant D.”

3. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion was determined by the first instance court on December 31, 2013 when determining whether the Defendants exceeded the obligations of Defendant B around the date of each of the instant sales reservations, and determined that Defendant B was liable for KRW 250 million to O, but the said obligations of Defendant B were extinguished by payment in substitutes on December 31, 2013.

In other words, Defendant B prepared an agreement with O on December 31, 2013 for the repayment of the above obligation. However, the content was that Defendant B issued a sales contract toO on condition of completion with respect to two houses which were being constructed on the land of Incheon-gun AR, and transferred the ownership of four parcels of land, such as AS 969 square meters, actually owned by Defendant B, to O, but when the Housing Corporation proceeds as planned and the repayment of obligation is completed, Defendant B transferred the ownership of the above four parcels of land to Defendant B again.

After that, the ownership of the four parcels of land was finally attributed to the O.

Therefore, Defendant B's above obligation.