1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims selectively added by this court, is as follows.

1. Grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts are set forth in the Notice Nos. 3, 14, and 4 of the first instance judgment.

In addition to the deletion of a claim, it is identical to the description of “1. Basic Facts” from No. 10 to No. 2 under the table No. 4 of the first instance judgment, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for the court’s argument concerning this part is as follows, except for the cases where part of the plaintiffs’ assertion is dismissed or added, since the statement from Nos. 5 to No. 16 under the table No. 4 of the first instance judgment is identical to that from No. 5 to No. 16 under the table No. 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the defendant" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to "the defendant".

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance, the following is added to Chapter 16:

【5) The Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff A the amount equivalent to KRW 21,428,00, KRW 39,046,800, and KRW 48,207,30 to the Plaintiff C for each of the items in excess of KRW 21,428,00, and KRW 39,000. The Plaintiffs, on their own initiative, seek damages due to nonperformance of obligations on the part in which the goods are not received.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Determination

A. 1) The reasoning for this part of this Court’s explanation is as stated in Chapters 6, 4, and 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is accepted pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) Meanwhile, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs were unable to receive part of the goods from the Defendant even if they paid the goods to the Defendant.

2) As seen in the above, it cannot be deemed that the purchase contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was rescinded on the grounds that the defendant's goods are unpaid. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim for restitution cannot be accepted under the premise that the purchase contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was rescinded.

B. First of all, the judgment on the claim for damages is due to the Plaintiffs’ payment of allowances.