1. The defendants' appeal (including the plaintiff) is dismissed.

2.Pursuant to the counterclaim brought at the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "Judgment on the claim of the principal suit" in Section 2, Section 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance; "Decision on the defense, etc." in Section 3, Section 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance; "Decision on the defense, etc. of the defendants. Judgment on the defense of the offset of the defendants"; and Section 2, Section 4 of the judgment of the court of second instance and Section 5 of the same Chapter.

The part of paragraph (1) shall be added and the part not more than 3, 17, 2.b below.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment except for those being used as mentioned in the same paragraph, and thus, it shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parts that are added or changed; and

A. In addition, if Defendant C does not jointly and severally guarantee Defendant C’s embezzlement compensation on February 29, 2012, the additional part of the “B.” written statement stating that if Defendant C would be jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to inform the parents and her children of the embezzlement, and that if Defendant C would not file a complaint against Defendant B, it would not be jointly and severally liable. This part of the above Defendant’s assertion appears to be invalid because it was either by intimidation or by thereafter the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant B. The above Defendant’s assertion appears to the purport that the above indication of joint and several liability would be revoked by coercion or on the condition that the said expression of intent would not be filed a complaint against the Defendant B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s act of coercion, such as the Defendant C’s assertion, or that such expression of intent was conditional, this part of the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.”

B. Determination on the claim for counterclaim "3. Judgment on the counterclaim"

A. As to the legitimacy, Article 412(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where there is no risk of undermining the interests of the other party in the instance of the other party, or where the other party’s consent is obtained, the appellate court may file a counterclaim, and the defendant B.