All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the appeal against Defendant AS Construction Co., Ltd. in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiffs’ request for the performance of the duty to repay loans to Defendant AS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant AS Construction”) on the grounds indicated in its holding is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of each of the instant loan agreements

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal against Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea and foreign exchange banks

A. The court below is just in holding that each of the above loans contract of the plaintiffs cannot be seen as a subordinate contract of each of the above contracts, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the above loans contract and each of the sales contracts of this case.

B. Even if Defendant A.S. Construction is obligated to perform the repayment of loans to the Plaintiffs pursuant to each of the instant loan agreements, solely on the ground that the Plaintiffs are not immediately released from the obligations of each of the loans to Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea and Foreign Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A.S. Bank”).

In addition, according to the records, there is no evidence to deem that Plaintiff B transferred the claim for the return of the sale price to Defendant AS Construction to Defendant A foreign exchange bank, and even if so, it cannot be deemed that Plaintiff B’s obligation for loans to Defendant B was extinguished.

Therefore, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that each of the loans owed to Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea and foreign exchange banks was extinguished on the ground of Defendant DaS Construction’s exemption from liability, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the legal principles regarding the interpretation of each of the instant loan agreements.