1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are asserted.

1. Basic facts

A. G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) is the executor of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Environment Improvement Project (hereinafter “Seoul Jongno-gu”) that newly constructs and sells a complex facility building on the nine underground floors and the 12-storys on the left-hand side of the 19th and right-hand side of the ground (2 roads) on the lots outside Jongno-gu, Seoul and 138, and D (hereinafter “D”) is a company for the purpose of real estate sales agency business.

B. On February 25, 2004 and January 24, 2005, D and G concluded a joint agreement with the purport that D will act as a sales agent for the instant project, and that D will receive 8% of the total sales amount from G as a sales agent, and that D would receive 20% of the sales amount as a sales agent fee. On November 2004, D and G entered into a joint agreement with the purport that D would receive 20% of the sales amount of the instant project from G.

C. The Defendant invested KRW 800 million in D on the condition that D will receive 10% of the proceeds of the instant business acquired from D on March 3, 2005, upon the recommendation of H (the person who operated D at the time).

(F) On the same day between the defendant and D, the investment share contract of KRW 800 million and the monetary loan contract of KRW 100 million were prepared). On the other hand, G guaranteed the above obligation against the defendant.

However, D and G did not obtain authorization and permission for the instant project and project financing (hereinafter “PF lending”) until July 30, 2005, which is the date of sale stipulated in the said investment share agreement, and the Defendant was difficult to recover the said investment amount from D due to H’s embezzlement of funds.

Accordingly, the defendant directly involved in the operation of D, which caused D to acquire the shares in the instant business from G, and had D to proceed with the instant business, and around August 2005, the defendant recommended the plaintiffs to make investments in D in order to prepare business expenses, such as the acquisition price of the shares in the instant business, etc.

E. D and G: (a) on December 14, 2005, 49% of the shares in the instant business rights from G from December 14, 2005.