1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant C, 112,500,000 won for Plaintiff C and this.

1. The grounds for this Court’s admitting the judgment of the first instance court are as stated in Articles 1 through 4 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height portion is as follows: “Receipt of remittance, etc.” on the 9th page 18th page of that part; “The purchase price received from the Plaintiffs is used to purchase factory sites located in the Gyeonggi-do Seocheon-gun.”

Part 10 No. 11-1 of the Evidence No. 11-1 of the Act added the “Evidence No. 6-1, 2, and 4 of the Evidence No. 11,” and the “statement No. 10-5” was written, and Defendant D purchased shares of 452.83/17958 square meters of the 17,958 square meters of the Sincheon-gun-gun, Gyeonggi-do land for factory on Nov. 9, 2006 at KRW 645,90,000 among the sales price, which was used by Defendant C to receive a purchase price for commercial share certificates,” and that part of the sales price was remitted from the bank account under Defendant D’s name.

The 10th page 11 to 21 are as follows:

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 3 and No. 11, Plaintiff B and Defendant C agreed to jointly purchase one plastic house within G district, and Plaintiff B transferred KRW 10 million to Defendant C on November 27, 2007. After that, Plaintiff B’s wife, Nonparty B’s wife, also prepared a statement of goods in the name of the owner of the said plastic house and the livestock industry (25 square meters at the Plaintiff’s request, but Plaintiff B and Defendant C rescinded the said agreement, at the Plaintiff’s request, and Defendant C returned the said purchase price of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff B.

According to the above facts, Defendant C has an objection to the existence or scope of the obligation of Defendant C from November 27, 2007, where the remaining purchase price was paid by Plaintiff B, due to restitution following the rescission of the above joint purchase agreement.