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 court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

① On May 12, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court applied for commencement of rehabilitation procedures on June 16, 2016, which was decided to discontinue rehabilitation procedures on September 27, 2016, and added the “Urban Biosung” to the following parts: “On May 12, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court decided to discontinue rehabilitation procedures on September 27, 2016,” and the said decision on discontinuation becomes final and conclusive.”

(2) On the third page, the following three categories of “entrys,” shall be in one column and add “the result of each fact-finding inquiry with respect to the Han Young Accounting Corporation and Sejong Accounting Corporation of this Court,” respectively.

2. In light of the fact that the above facts acknowledged as to the cause of the claim coincide with the details of the sales and receipts and disbursements of urban bareboat and the details of the issuance of electronic tax invoices, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 1 billion won and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The defendants' assertion 1) The defendant U.S. M. S. S. S. S. M. paid the price to urban bari in full by means of cash, B2B, and S. S.C. in advance.

B. Even if some unpaid goods remain, Defendant U.S.I.D. fully repaid the price for the goods that was incurred during the period from October 24, 2013 to October 24, 2016, the guarantee period of the Industrial Bank of Korea, to the Urban C&I. There is no circumstance to deem that the price for the goods that the Defendant paid was appropriated for the repayment of other goods by agreement appropriation, designation appropriation, and legal appropriation.

Therefore, the price for the goods that Defendant Li SIS SIS failed to pay to the city is limited to the portion incurred before October 24, 2013.