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 court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the allegations made by the Defendants in the trial, or repeated or new arguments made by the Defendants in the trial, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the Defendants in the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

[Supplementary part] Since "Codefendant C" in the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive, all "Defendant C" shall be written by "C".

"B" in the 3rd to 17th 18th 1 of the judgment of the first instance court shall have "B" in the project of this case as the project of this case.

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court (the same as the proviso to Article 2 of the Convention of this case) shall be amended into "the proviso to Article 2 (2) of the Convention of this case" in Part 18 of the judgment of the first instance.

The Court of First Instance No. 12 of the Decision No. 15-16 of the Decision No. 12, "the fact that a monetary loan contract has been concluded with the plaintiff" shall be as follows.

B. On February 15, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the instant promotion committee, a separate monetary loan agreement (Evidence A) stating that “the Plaintiff shall treat KRW 209,255,600 paid as the source of operating expenses, etc. to the instant promotion committee from May 9, 2007 to December 28, 2007” was prepared between the Plaintiff and the instant promotion committee, and that the said amount is consistent with the revenue statement of the instant promotion committee as stated in the expenditure statement of the project cost as seen earlier with the portion of “Seongsung C&C 209,25,600 won” (Evidence A 7-5 to 6) as stated in the revenue statement of the instant promotion committee.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is as follows. The Defendants asserted to the following purport in the trial.

1) Generally, a management entity specialized in improvement projects as prescribed by the Urban Improvement Act (hereinafter “management entity specialized in improvement projects”).

(tentatively, the promotion committee will subsidize all expenses, such as operating expenses, required until approval for establishment of the promotion committee under the Urban Improvement Act, and the designation of the improvement zone with its own expenses.