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 judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the defendant's new argument of the court of first instance is examined as to the defendants' assertion on March 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance (as well as the case where the defendant's new argument in the appellate court is determined as to the newly raised argument in the appellate court), and therefore, it is acceptable

[Supplementary Use]

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion was that the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff’s sales of real estate listed in the separate sheet to F, etc. according to the share ratio (each share 1/4) against the Plaintiff. The instant loan certificate is merely a formality of the dividend process.

However, in the lawsuit where F filed a claim for the return of down payment against the Plaintiff by claiming the return of the down payment against F and the Plaintiff, the decision of recommending a compromise between F and F was finalized with the purport that “the Plaintiff would pay F KRW 90 million (the Jeju District Court 2017Kadan4118). Therefore, the Defendants should only return 22.5 million (=90 million x 1/4) to the Plaintiff according to their respective shares of 1/4.

B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant loan certificate was prepared in the form, and rather, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is placed in the place where the provisional contract amount is returned because the sales contract for the real estate listed in the separate sheet was not concluded as a fixed contract, and the Defendants who received the provisional contract amount sought the return of the loan amount in accordance with the instant loan certificate. Therefore, D and the Defendants are reasonable to return the provisional contract amount received by them in accordance with the instant loan certificate.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion that the amount of return of the defendants should be limited to the amount of the above reconciliation recommendation decision is without merit, since it cannot be viewed as the form of the loan certificate prepared by the defendants.

2. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.