1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court against the Defendants: (a) KRW 7 million on July 8, 2009; and (b) KRW 38 million on the cash custody certificate as of December 13, 2010; (b) the first instance court accepted Plaintiff B’s claim with respect to the portion of the claim; and (c) ordered Defendant D to pay KRW 7 million and its delay damages to Plaintiff B; and (b) upon receiving the claim by the Plaintiffs, the lower court ordered the Defendants to pay KRW 38 million and its delay damages.

The plaintiffs and defendant D did not appeal the part of the claim, and the defendants appealed only to the part of the claim, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim.

2. Determination as to the claim for money stated in the cash custody certificate as of December 13, 2010

A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, the evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the testimony by the witness F of the first instance trial, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendants, on December 13, 2010, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiffs a cash custody certificate stating that “18,000,000 won is paid at the time when the facilities are sold and the facilities are compensated,” and the Defendants received the above compensation around November 14, 2012, and repaid KRW 80,000 to the Plaintiffs on November 14, 2012.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiffs the remainder of KRW 38,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from June 14, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is obviously a day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the said cash custody certificate was invested by Defendant D with the introduction of Defendant D in the Republic of Korea mine and was deemed to have been damaged, the Defendants forced the Defendants to compensate for the damages and forced the Defendants to pay the damages.