1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and all appeals against the Defendants C, G, and J are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for the judgment of paragraph (2) as to the assertion that the plaintiff added or emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus,

(except for parts related only to F and K in the first instance trial). At the end of the 14th end of the first instance judgment, the following parts shall be added:

In the attached Form 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the claim(s) of the Plaintiff’s claim(s) on March 3, 2011 and the claim(s) for return of KRW 10,108,100 against Defendant E, which was established after the set-off date, and the claim for return of KRW 17,228,60 on March 3, 201 for Defendant G (the last reduced portion in the attached Form 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance) and the claim for return of KRW 17,228,60 (the last reduced portion in the attached Form 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be excluded from the claim(s) of the Plaintiff’s claim(s) and the amount of the credit “Nam” shall be considered as “the amount of the claim of the Plaintiff remaining after set-off.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants’ assertion that set-off defense is not permissible. This is because the Defendants’ claim for statutory interest and return of the purchase-price of the Defendants, an automatic claim, is subject to a claim set-off by the defense of simultaneous performance. (ii) Even if set-off is permitted, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the interest and return of the purchase price, which is an automatic claim, should be applied by deeming that the statutory interest and claim after the payment date of the Plaintiff’s claim

If a set-off could have been made before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, it is possible to set-off the prescription benefit by waiver pursuant to Article 495 of the Civil Act.

B. In the event that the automatic claim and the passive claim, which is the object of set-1 set-off, are not practically necessary even if they are in a simultaneous performance relationship, it would be difficult to eliminate the obligation of set-off, rather than that it would cause any disadvantage due to set-off, and allow a set-off.