1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The judgment of this court within the scope of the plaintiff A filed a claim against the defendant, the first instance court, the defendant C, and D for the return of the loan around the defendant, the second instance court, the second instance court, the defendant C, and the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance, the second instance

Since this Court appealed only to the defendant, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the defendant's part among the above claims.

2. The reasons why the court of the first instance cited the instant case are identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for modification, modification, or addition as follows, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ “피고 주식회사 C, 피고회사, 피고 D”를 “제1심피고 주식회사 C, 제1심피고 회사, 제1심피고 D”로 각 수정한다.

▣ 제1심판결문 제4면 제12행 중 “원고들은 당시 고령이고” “원고 A는 1949년생, 원고 B은 1937년생으로써 그 당시 고령이고” ▣ 제1심판결문 제5면 제3행 중 “사실을 모두 종합하여 보면” “피고의 소개로 제1심피고 회사에 투자하였다가 반환받은 제1심증인 F은 ‘피고는 사람들을 회유해서 제1심피고 D에게 돈을 끌어다 바치는 모집책이었다’는 취지로 증언한 사실을 종합해 보면” ▣ 제1심판결문 제5면 제4행 중 “원고들을 기망하였고” “원고들을 기망하는 등으로 불법행위를 하였고” ▣ 제1심판결문 제5면 제5행 중 “상당하다”"상당하므로, 공동불법행위자인 피고와 제1심피고 D는 특별한 사정이 없는 한...