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 plaintiffs' arguments are stated in the claim for loans (main claim) filed between the plaintiffs and the defendant, as stated in the claim contract (hereinafter "claim contract of this case"). The plaintiffs lent to the defendant 125,000,000 won including the amount of 20,000,000 won on November 28, 2006 and the amount of 30,000,000 won on November 29, 2006, and 75,000,000,000 won on December 8, 2006, so the defendant is obligated to return the above loans to the plaintiffs and pay interest or delay damages.

The pertinent claim for return of unjust enrichment upon cancellation of a contract (preliminary claim) was received by deceiving the Plaintiffs even though the Defendant did not intend to use the said loan for the purpose of rebuilding sale agency business, which is its original purpose, and thus, the Plaintiffs were aware of their intent by fraud, and thus, the Plaintiffs were revoked the instant claim contract and sought the return of the said loan as unjust enrichment to the Defendant.

With respect to the actual claim of the defendant, the defendant did not borrow the above money from the plaintiffs, and the claim contract of this case is forged whether the plaintiffs have the defendant's seal impression and the certificate of seal impression.

- At the time, the plaintiffs decided to make a joint investment in the reconstruction agency business, and used the account under the name of the defendant for the payment of 250,000,000 won of the performance bond for the parcelling-out agency business. Accordingly, the defendant immediately deposited the above amount received from the plaintiffs into the account in the name of G designated by F, Inc., the service provider for the public relations of the said reconstruction agency business. However, the above joint investment was no more than December 2006 on the wind that the plaintiffs did not prepare the remaining performance bond.

- Therefore, the primary claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiffs is without merit.

With respect to the preliminary claim, the Defendant received the above amount from the Plaintiff C.