1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the part against the Defendants among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the judgment of the court of first instance was accepted as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept

2. The part "Defendant D" is written in a lump sum with "Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial".

3. '2. Judgment on the Grounds of the Claims' (12.15.) shall be made in the following manner:

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff with Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial, and with the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 248,00,000 calculated by subtracting the amount of KRW 50,000,00,000, which the Plaintiff had received from the money pursuant to the instant agreement, from July 8, 2016, which is clearly recorded as the day after the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant Management Body, and the Defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 28, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is obviously a day after the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant C.

Five pages 1 to 3 shall be cut down as follows:

A) On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, who served as the representative of the Defendant Management Body, paid KRW 19 million to H Company without any legal cause. Therefore, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally obligated to return it to the Defendant Management Body. As such, the Defendant Management Body has a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 19 million against the Plaintiff. From May 15 to 18, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 19 million to H Company on December 29, 2014, as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties.

However, according to the statement of Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the testimony of J as the auditor of the defendant management body at the time, the plaintiff is responsible for the remainder of the cost of fire-fighting supervision for the H company, which is the fire-fighting supervisor, in order to obtain the fire-fighting certificate, which is necessary for the approval of use of Btel, for a period of one month.