1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning the conjunctive claim against the Defendant is modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. The scope of this Court’s trial at the first instance trial against the defendant and the co-defendant J of the first instance trial, the return of the loan in the first instance trial, and the conjunctive claim for reimbursement of expenses arising from the management of affairs. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs’ primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim. Accordingly, the defendant only appealed against the judgment of the first instance trial, and the scope of this Court’s trial is limited to the part concerning the conjunctive claim against the defendant in the first instance trial.

2. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the co-implementer and the co-contractor of the instant reconstruction project and the joint implementer of the district comprehensive construction (hereinafter “non-party company”) located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City V (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”). The co-defendant of the first instance court concluded a contract for the distribution of investment profits with the non-party company and the non-party company with the claim for investment profits distribution against the non-party company.

B. Around December 2008, the Defendant and J (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) filed a lawsuit of demurrer against a third party (hereinafter “third party’s lawsuit”) with the court 2008da138477 at the same time, and filed an application of the suspension of compulsory execution under the condition that the Defendant, etc. deposit KRW 50 million from the third party as collateral on January 22, 2009 to deposit KRW 50 million with the court 207Gahap5409 and 2007Gahap5416 until the judgment of the third party of this case is rendered (hereinafter “instant judgment”). In order to prevent compulsory execution based on the original judgment with the executory power of each of the instant judgment of provisional execution (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

C. The remaining Plaintiffs except Plaintiff G and H were the Defendants of each of the instant judgments, and the Plaintiffs were the Defendants.