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 for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and this part of the facts is the same as that of the first instance court’s judgment “1. Recognizing the facts”. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, Part 18 "H" is raised as "M (H company)".

(b) Part III "I (J)" in Part III of the judgment of the first instance court is "I (A) and "I (A) in the name of co-defendant C of the first instance trial."

(c) On the third part of the judgment of the first instance court, following the third part of the judgment, “I paid KRW 180 million to G out of the contract deposit under the above scrap metal transaction contract.”

Part 4 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be 12 to 16.

“The delegation letter (hereinafter referred to as “the delegation letter of this case”)”

(1) The Defendants entered into a contract with K (L company) and the sales price for the instant machinery as of June 14, 2014 is KRW 39 million (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

) The sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) is prepared and entered into by the Company.

) The above sales contract was concluded, and the seller column of the above sales contract stated J, while the name of the Defendants is written and sealed in the seller column of the lower end.

(e) Forms 4, 17, and 19 of the first instance judgment “Defendant C” shall each be “C Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial”.

(f)as of the fourth decision of the court of first instance, the following shall be added:

H. As D’s delay in the payment of sirens, the Plaintiff terminated the siren contract around September 30, 2014, and came to know that D purchased and possessed the said machinery while demanding the return of the instant machinery, and sought the return of the said machinery to K. However, on October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff responded that D’s normal purchase of the instant machinery from K cannot be returned.