1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant of the claim shall be plaintiff A.

1. 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. Thus, the court shall supplement the judgment as stipulated in the following paragraph (2) and cite it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in

2. Supplement of judgment

A. On September 2014, the Defendant asserts that the “Agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, M, and N, stating the agreed amount as KRW 600 million (Evidence 1; hereinafter “Defendant’s assertion agreement”) is the only agreement that was duly made between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, and that the instant agreement was merely a formal agreement and does not constitute a genuine agreement.

B. However, according to the following circumstances, it is insufficient to reverse the recognition of the first instance court, which is a written agreement in which the instant agreement was duly prepared only by several arguments as seen below by the Defendant.

1. The defendant is the person whose seal is affixed to the agreement of this case.

As a result, the following words differ with respect to the developments in which the instant agreement was made.

In other words, on the first day for pleading of the first instance court, the plaintiffs asserted that "the agreement was the first one, and the plaintiffs would not have any choice but to cancel the rights registered in each real estate of this case unless they are prepared and notified of the agreement of this case."

However, from the third date for pleading of the first instance trial, “O demanded and prepared a fee of KRW 100 million to the Defendant later than the Plaintiffs.”

As such, the Defendant’s argument on the preparation process of the instant agreement is not consistent, and even according to any assertion, it is difficult to readily understand the reasoning of the argument that the Defendant affixed a seal to the said document that may cause the Defendant to pay back its obligations.

On the other hand, the defendant's written agreement of this case is KRW 100 million of the O fee.