1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) each of the “F” in the 3rd, 4, 13, and 18 of the first instance judgment is used as “B”; and (b) the Defendants’ grounds for appeal are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the supplementary determination as to the grounds for appeal as set forth in the 2th below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Defendant B asserts that the payment of full amount of damage as joint tortfeasor does not comply with equity in light of the circumstances leading up to and degree of participation in the crime of fraud as the grounds for appeal.

Defendant D asserts that, in light of the circumstances and degree of participation in the commission of the crime, distribution of responsibility to E, etc., Defendant D’s liability should be limited to KRW 20 million out of the Plaintiff’s damages, and that, among which, KRW 10 million has already been deposited, Defendant D is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 10 million.

The liability for joint tort does not individually seek damages from each individual act of the perpetrator, but is held liable for the tort jointly committed by the perpetrator. As such, the scope of liability for joint tort is determined by comprehensively evaluating all the acts of the tortfeasor in relation to the victim. The amount of liability for damages is to bear the full liability for the tortfeasor. Even though the degree of liability for the tortfeasor's tort is minor compared to the other tortfeasor, the scope of liability for the tortfeasor's in relation to the victim cannot be limited to part of the amount of compensation as set forth above.

Supreme Court Decision 98Da31691 Decided October 20, 1998 and Supreme Court Decision 98Da31691 Decided September 29, 200. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84707 Decided September 29, 200, etc. submitted by Defendant D, are negligent pursuant to Article 760(3) of the Civil Act.