1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

purport.

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 except for the following cases. Thus, the reasoning of the court's explanation is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part II of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "in light of this," and part II of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of the court of first instance), " Defendant C may be deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C's monetary payment obligation."

On the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, "the date of sentencing of this case" and "the date of sentencing of the first instance court" have been written.

Part III through VI of the judgment of the first instance court shall be as follows.

“The Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff’s arbitrary allocation of the unit price of the money was inappropriate; (b) the price of the money should be adjusted at an appropriate level; and (c) the Defendants’ disposal of the money amounting to KRW 11,200,000, which was not returned despite the defect in the money supplied by the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendants’ disposal of the said KRW 800,000, out of the Plaintiff’s claim, the part equivalent to the said KRW 11,20,000 in the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable; (b) however, there is a lack of proof to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion based on the evidence Nos. 2 and 4.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.