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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "E" in Part 2, Part 8, Part 19 of the first instance court's judgment; "Entry in Part 2, part 19 is as "G"; "Withdrawal of KRW 1,488,680 from August 11, 2006 to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act" in Part 3 is as follows: "Collection of KRW 1,48,680 from Gu around August 11, 2006 to Article 1,48,680 from Gu shall be as "Collection of KRW 1,680 from Gu around August 11, 2006"; the third part 16 through 20 shall be as stated in the first instance court's judgment except for the second part 20, as described below. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,885,420 (i.e., KRW 50,00,00 - KRW 3,950,00 - KRW 2,164,580) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from January 15, 2014, which is the day following the last copy of the complaint of this case, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute as to the existence of the obligation and the scope of the obligation, until September 17, 2014, which is the date of adjudication of the first instance court, until September 17, 2014, and until the day of full payment.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified within the scope of recognition, and the remainder of the claim is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on January 15, 2014, on March 14, 2014, and on December 19, 2013. The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the next day after the duplicate of the complaint of this case was delivered to Defendant B. The judgment of the court of first instance cited damages for delay from January 15, 2014, which is the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. However, the part on damages for delay against Defendant C of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair. However, in the case of appeal filed only by the Defendants, the part on damages for delay should not be modified disadvantageously to Defendant C who is the appellant in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.