1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as follows. The defendant's new arguments are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the defendants' new arguments, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants asserts that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff purchased two households of multi-household houses completed through the instant construction from the co-defendant D of the first instance trial on the pretext of repayment of loan claims against the Defendants, the Plaintiff claimed that all of the loan obligations were repaid.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract for G and multi-household 2 households with which Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial as representative director around 2013, each of the above sales contract stated “for guarantee of payment of rent,000,000,000” as the above sales contract, and the fact that the object of each of the above sales contract was transferred to ownership in the name of a third party after the preparation of the above sales contract.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff appears to have prepared the above sales contract for the purpose of securing loan claims against the defendants, and unlike the entries in the evidence No. 6 and No. 7, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff concluded the above sales contract in lieu of repayment of loan obligations, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. In addition, the Defendants asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against Co-Defendant E, Co-Defendant, Ltd. of the first instance trial was transferred, and that the Plaintiff failed to collect loans due to neglect of debt collection even after receiving the sales contract by two households of multi-household housing, seeking the repayment of loans against the Defendants is contrary to the good faith principle.

However, the Defendants asserted.