1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

The defendants of the claim are the defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications:

[Revision] The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance refers to the phrase “as of January 17, 2018” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “as of January 17, 2013.”

On the third part of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase "the chief judge and the judgment" in the fifth part of the judgment is "the judgment on the cause of the claim".

From 3th to 17th of the judgment of the first instance court, the third to 13th of the judgment is as follows.

The Defendants jointly purchased KRW 626,850,00, and KRW 345,345,610, respectively, with the netF’s share of KRW 626,850,00, and KRW 345,345,610. Therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have the position of a title trustee with respect to the share of the amount corresponding to the funds invested by the Defendants. The Defendants are raising “No. 24” as “No. 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, No. 28, No. 28-1, 2, 37, and 43.”

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “the agreed fact” in the 20th judgment is as follows: “after entering into an agreement, the KRW 10 million was deposited in the Defendant D’s account on February 2, 2017, and KRW 5 million on February 14, 201, respectively.”

On the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the "witness" of the first instance judgment is regarded as a "witness of the first instance court".

The evidence of No. 7 of the first instance court's first to second is "No. 27, 28 of the first instance court's judgment".

From 7th to 15th of the judgment of the first instance court, the following subparagraphs are followed.

② The Defendants asserted that all of the purchase funds of the instant sales contract were borne by the principal, but reversed the existing assertion that only KRW 345,345,610 out of the purchase funds of KRW 972,195,610 was paid by the principal.

In light of the fact that the difference in the amount claimed by the Defendants was about KRW 600 million, it is not easy to reverse the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds of such purchase.

In addition, the defendants are also the sales contract of this case.