1. All appeals filed 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 citing the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Part 3 7-14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has been written or added, shall be subject to the following parts:

“However, as seen earlier, the Defendant embezzled the instant land to K and L around February 2014 before the transfer registration for ownership of the instant land was made to six persons, including G, etc., for sale at KRW 250,000,000, and as a result, the Plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to the amount inherited by the Plaintiffs out of the purchase price. However, as the Defendant paid KRW 40,00,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid KRW 67,142,857 to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by a tort (=(250,000 x 3/7 x 40,000 x 3/7) - the term payment KRW 71,428,571 (= 250,000,000 x 250,000 x 2/7) and damages for delay, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 12 through No. 17, 17,1700 or 7).

The 5th 11th 12th 12th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 2th 2th 201

The following is added to the judgment of the court of first instance, “The instant land was sold to K and L in KRW 250,000,000, and the Plaintiffs pressure the Defendant couple while raising doubt as to the ownership of the instant land, thereby resulting in a dispute between relatives in narrow Eastern by a dispute between relatives.”

viii The Plaintiffs filed a complaint that “The Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the instant land and embezzled the purchase price, even if it was nominal,” but on October 25, 2018.