1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

3. The first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows. The Defendants’ assertion on this case is identical to the entry of the first instance judgment except for further determination as to the matters alleged in the first instance judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

After the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants were transferred from Defendant D’s account to Plaintiff B’s account from July 26, 201 to December 10 of the same year [it is difficult for Defendant to find out the difference between the witness’s purchase price under the instant contract and the purchase price under each follow-up contract (No. 203, 302, 303, 403, and 503) with respect to the sale of the instant building from July 26, 201 to December 10 of the same year, and the amount equivalent to the difference between the purchase price under the instant contract and the purchase price under each follow-up contract of this case is less than KRW 13 million and KRW 19,890,000. According to the Defendants’ assertion, it is difficult for each of the Defendants to find out the difference between the witness’s purchase price under the instant contract and the witness’s remaining payment of the purchase price under the instant contract with the third party without being paid the balance of KRW 3.6 billion from the purchase price.

After the judgment of the court of first instance No. 16, the plaintiffs' act of participating in the sale of the above 401 is without any evidence to deem that the contract of this case was terminated on or before September 201, and the money paid in relation to the sale of the above 401.