1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows, except for the addition and modification of the following and additional determination of the Defendants’ new arguments, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Following the "G Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee" in the fourth and second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part added "(the Chairperson: Defendant C)" to the "G Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee" in the second sentence of the fourth and second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the second sentence to the same 10 million won, "the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on August 4, 2017 an agreed amount of KRW 80 million out of the agreed amount of KRW 150 million in accordance with the content of the agreement of this case," and "the Defendant" in the same 9th sentence to "the Plaintiff", and "70 million won in the agreement amount of KRW 150 million in the same 150 million in the remaining amount (=150 million in the agreed amount of KRW 850 million in the agreed amount of KRW 80 million in the previous sentence)."

B. Further matters to be determined are that even if the original copy of the land sales contract was delivered by the Plaintiff pursuant to the contents of the instant sales contract, the name of the purchaser of the said sales contract is written on the Plaintiff’s side, and there is no way to complete the registration of ownership transfer for the land, etc. in the instant project site in the Defendant Company. Thus, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the content of the instant sales contract was to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff under the condition of suspending the Plaintiff’s change of the purchaser’

The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted the instant agreement under the condition of suspension, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the contents of the instant agreement, “the Defendant” up to August 4, 2017, 2010 won out of KRW 150,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000, out of service fees of KRW 200,000,000,000.