All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, shall be deleted from the third to fourth five pages, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows, with the exception that the Defendants are emphasized or newly asserted in this court.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion

A. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff did not withdraw the intent to conclude the instant first agreement, the Defendants asserted that “The Plaintiff did not withdraw the intent to conclude the instant first agreement against D, and thus, KRW 260 million paid to D is not a loan, but a share purchase price and a contribution to E in accordance with the instant first agreement.” However, in full view of the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness witness D of this court, the Plaintiff may be recognized as having withdrawn the intent to conclude the instant first agreement against D around February 20, 2014, so the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion of revocation due to deception or mistake, the Defendants asserted that “The Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff had withdrawn the intention of entering into the instant secondary agreement, without notifying the Defendants of the withdrawal of the intention of entering into the instant secondary agreement, which is an important content of the instant secondary agreement, the Plaintiff entices the Defendants that the instant secondary agreement merely embodys the terms and conditions of the instant primary agreement, and that the Defendants, in turn, made a mistake that the Plaintiff did not withdraw the intent of entering into the instant primary agreement, and entered into the instant secondary agreement by mistake that the Plaintiff did not withdraw the intention of entering into the instant primary agreement.” Therefore, the Defendants asserted that “The instant secondary agreement is revoked on the grounds of deception or mistake.”

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone, as alleged in the above, led the Plaintiff to deception the Defendants.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants entered into the instant secondary agreement by mistake, and otherwise.