1. The plaintiffs' appeal and incidental appeal of defendant C Co., Ltd. are dismissed, respectively.

2. The extension by this court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in the second instance court’s decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part that is dismissed or added is "A. The plaintiffs' primary claims related to the plaintiffs' primary claims" in Section 13 of Section 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the plaintiffs' primary claims (including the part extended by the court)."

On the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the "1 billion won" in the 21st sentence shall be "1.1 billion won", and the "1.5 billion won" shall be "1.65 billion won".

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, "a claim against unjust enrichment" in the 9th judgment is regarded as "a claim against return of unjust enrichment".

The "No. 59" shall be added to the "No. 43" of the 9th judgment of the first instance.

Part 10 of the decision of the first instance shall add the following information to the following:

In the appellate court [Attachmentju High Court 2015Nu177, 2015Nu188 (Joint)] that the plaintiffs appealed against this judgment and declared that the lawsuit was terminated on the ground that "the withdrawal of the lawsuit by January 28, 2016" was "the withdrawal of the lawsuit by January 28, 2016," and the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive through the final appeal.

Part 12 of the judgment of the first instance court, "M" in Part 9 shall be changed to "N".

From 12th to 13th to 18th to 12th to 12th to 12th to 12th to 13th to 12th to 2

However, it is difficult to believe that the following circumstances, which can be known by the evidence mentioned above, are considered, and the market price appraisal result is difficult.

① An appraiser N did not present any opinion about the appropriate financial information, data, etc. on which the appraisal was based, and found the value of the facility, etc. to be the amount indicated in the financial statement, and there is no objective ground to deem such financial information, etc. correct, and the appraiser himself did not reflect it in the financial statement.