1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, and the reasoning for this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, and such reasoning is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "Plaintiffs" at the bottom of 3 pages shall be regarded as "sellers".

At the bottom of 5 pages, “2. Supply of domestic FY hotel reservations and discount services” is called “3. Supply of domestic FY hotel reservations and discount services.”

At the bottom of 5 pages, "Ap. 1 through 6" shall be raised with "Ap. 1 through 4 and 6."

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant supply contract and the instant consignment contract, the Defendant paid monthly interest subsidies calculated at the rate of 11% per annum with respect to the Plaintiffs, and with respect to the fixed profit calculated at the rate of 50% per annum with respect to the sales price of 50% per annum, and the remainder of 50% with respect to the secured loan, and ② allowing six affiliated hotel rooms including the instant hotel to be used for the period of 60 days per annum (10 days per hotel) without any limitation, and ③ the Defendant bears the interest on the loans of 1 to 5th intermediate payment, and ④ the Defendant agrees to receive the right to operate the instant hotel from the Plaintiffs to re-let them only to G companies.

However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs a fixed amount of profit at all, paid part of the interest subsidy that actually incurred less than 5% per annum, and ② The Plaintiffs limited the use of three hotels (the instant hotel, H hotel, L) only for themselves and their family members, ③ the interest rate of the intermediate payment was borne by the Defendant, and ④ the re-trustee arbitrarily changed from G to Austria.

B. The Defendant, who revoked a contract on the ground of fraud or mistake, deceivings the Plaintiffs as if it actually guarantees the benefits of a certain level that could not be guaranteed as above, and the Plaintiffs were affiliated therewith or important matters of the instant supply contract and the instant entrustment contract.