1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' primary claims and the ancillary claims added by this court are all the conjunctive claims.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the reasoning for this decision is the same as the part of the "1. Basic Facts" as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. The Defendants’ primary and primary assertion indicate that the Plaintiffs received each of the instant provisional payment only in the accounting books of the Defendants, but the Defendants did not actually pay the provisional payment to the Plaintiffs.

Even if the obligation to return each of the instant provisional payments was actually incurred to the Plaintiffs, G and H succeeded to the said obligation.

The Defendants kept accounts of provisional payment as bonus separately from the payment of bonus to the Plaintiffs.

Ultimately, the Plaintiffs did not have any obligation to return the provisional payment to the Defendants.

Preliminaryly, even if the Defendants are deemed to have disposed of as bonus from the Plaintiffs, the accounting process is reasonable, so there is no unlawful return of the amount equivalent to the provisional payment against the Defendants, nor liability for damages.

As long as the Defendants dispute this, there is a benefit of confirmation because there is a danger in the plaintiffs' rights or legal status.

B. We examine ex officio the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is legitimate.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate the danger, in danger, and in danger, in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation shall be a person who is likely to cause uneasy in the plaintiff's legal status by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and in other words, a person who asserts conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff, and the benefit of confirmation shall be against such defendant.