All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

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 cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part resulting from a dismissal or addition as described in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts used or added;

A. On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “ September 19, 2018” in the 12th sentence “2018.16,” the term “2018 high-ranking 1913” in the 5th page “2018 high-ranking 19913,” and the term “as indicated in the following table” in the 7th page 9 and 10 shall be applied.

B. The part of the first instance judgment Nos. 7 through 7, 16 and 23, as follows, shall be applied.

“B) Accordingly, Defendant D is liable to compensate Plaintiff A for damages equivalent to the sum of the profit and product price under Article 15 of the instant contract, and the amount equivalent to the above 43,424,878 won, Defendant E is liable to pay the above 171,870,686 won, Defendant F is the above 111,434,147 won, Defendant G is the above 77,183,540 won, and damages for delay on each of the above amounts.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted from the 8th to the 9th page “On the other hand” of the 8th page.

Parts 8, 16, 8, and 19 of the first instance judgment shall be applied as follows.

“B) Accordingly, Defendant D, due to the return of unjust enrichment, is obligated to pay the above 28,463,378 won to Plaintiff A; Defendant E, the above 66,218,435 won; Defendant F, the above 69,734,747 won; Defendant G, the above 24,582,240 won; and damages for delay to each of the above money.

A person shall be appointed.

E. On the 8th anniversary of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added.

【3) The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages arising from the tort of this case by Defendant D incurred damages for which the order of KRW 142,292,00 was revoked only on March 7, 2018 from the Plaintiff’s partners on the day of the crime.

Therefore, Defendant D is liable to compensate the Plaintiff A for damages arising from the tort of KRW 142,292,00,000, which is part of the above damages.