1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation in this case are as follows, with the exception of the rejection of each description of evidence Nos. 11 through 16, which is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the part of the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court's explanation in this case shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As of September 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs agreed to settle the cash assets of D in the process of the above acceptance as of September 30, 2014, when the maturity date for the first half-term sale of D in 2014 arrives. Since the Defendant requires the management fund of KRW 80,000,000 to operate the company in a stable manner, the Defendant provided that the Defendant borrowed the said money from the money to be paid to the Plaintiffs by deducting the said money (b).

The Defendant agreed to settle all the balance of the passbook in the name of the above reference date, excluding the above 80,000,000 won among cash assets, by means of payment to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant asserted that: (a) the above 100,224,500 won paid on September 30, 2014 by the Defendant was paid with the settlement of cash assets excluding the above borrowed money; and (b) it was not received as the settlement of the above borrowed money; (c) the obligor asserted that he/she paid the money as the settlement of a specific debt; (d) the obligee recognized the receipt by the obligee; and (e) in the event the obligee asserts that he/she appropriated the money as the settlement of other debt, the obligee has to assert and prove that there was an agreement on the repayment of other debt and that the other debt is in the priority of legal appropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da14433, Dec. 10, 199; and (e) evidence Nos. 3, 6 and 8 evidence No. 19-20