1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. "The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance for the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance";

A. The second part of the "paragraph (2)" is used as follows, and the defendant's new arguments made in this court are the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance except for further determination as to the new arguments made by the defendant in this court. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[2] In a case where a creditor claims foreign currency claims into Korean currency, the foreign exchange rate at the time of the conclusion of the trial proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da2147, Mar. 12, 1991). The appellate court shall re-issue the amount of claims based on the foreign exchange rate at the time of the conclusion of the trial proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72765, Apr. 12, 2007). The exchange rate at USD 1,123.80, Mar. 23, 2017, which is the date of the conclusion of the trial proceedings, is an official announcement. Accordingly, the Defendant is ultimately identical to the Plaintiff A, namely, USD 26,115,988, Jul. 12, 201 (i.e., USD 23, USD 239 x USD 1,1238, etc.).

) The Plaintiff B is obligated to pay USD 21,943 x 1,123.80 x 1,123.80.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs each of the above amounts and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 25, 2012 following the day when the defendant received the above share purchase price to February 25, 2012 until April 27, 2017, which is the date of the decision of this court, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. As to the defendant's additional argument

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant used the purchase price of the plaintiffs' shares as corporate operating expenses with the consent of the plaintiffs, and since it did not embezzled it, it shall return the purchase price of the shares to the plaintiffs.