1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the defendants, as additional evidence submitted to this court, are expected to give the plaintiff an order for the removal construction work in collusion, and it is insufficient to recognize the defendants' assertion that the defendants acquired 65 million won by deceit from the plaintiff, which is insufficient to recognize the defendants' assertion that the defendants acquired 65 million won from the plaintiff, and the statement in the evidence No. 8-1 through No. 7, No. 9-1 through No. 8, and No. 10, and the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Gyeongnam Bank on June 11, 2015, and the following additional or additional statement is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of the judgment, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2.In addition, in Part IV, the following shall be added to the decision of the first instance.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 22, 23 of the evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-2 and 5-B, Defendant C was indicted for the charge of acquiring the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant C was sentenced to acquittal on July 11, 2014 from the Ulsan District Court (2014No98), and the Supreme Court (2014Do9596) was finalized by dismissing the prosecutor’s appeal on October 30, 2014, and Defendant D was also subject to a disposition of non-guilty on January 21, 2013 from the Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office against the same suspicion.”

3. Part IV of the judgment of the court of first instance, from 5th to 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be written in the following manner:

“However, although Defendant D is the nominal owner of H’s business license operated at the above store, it is difficult to recognize that the above Defendant brought profits to the Defendant while entirely operating the above store, and it is also difficult to recognize that the said Defendant did not bring profits to the said store. Moreover, in the course of subleting the above store to I on August 30, 207, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants either demanded the Plaintiff or I for compensation for the expenses incurred in the above test, or attempted to recover the said fees.