1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows.

Of the principal lawsuit of this case,

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the plaintiffs (1) rejected compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case as the principal lawsuit, and (2) the defendant claimed against the plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff C”) and the plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) for the payment of the principal and interest on the loan unpaid to the plaintiff Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”).

The first instance court, as to the plaintiffs' claim on the main lawsuit, dismissed the part on which the plaintiff's refusal of compulsory execution as to KRW 17,060,081, among the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case, on the ground that there is no interest in the lawsuit to seek a non-performance of compulsory execution due to the termination of compulsory execution. ② The plaintiff's refusal of compulsory execution is limited to the portion exceeding KRW 25,00,000 among the remainder except the portion on which the plaintiff's repayment claim was partially accepted, and all of the claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed. ② As to the defendant's counterclaim, the plaintiff's counterclaim was dismissed, ① partly accepted the counterclaim claim against the plaintiff C, and ② accepted the remainder of the counterclaim claim against the plaintiff Eul.

As to the judgment of the first instance, only the plaintiffs appealed.

Therefore, the scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the part against the plaintiffs regarding the plaintiffs' claims for main lawsuit [the part against the above (1)] and the part against the plaintiffs C and B (2) of the defendant's counterclaim.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the 7th page, the part of “(c)” in the “Determination on the rest of the principal claim” shall be written in the following table: (c) 2 through 3.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs are the defendant from the I Bank Account of the plaintiff C to 17.