1. The decision of the court of first instance against the defendant, which exceeds the money ordered to be paid below among the parts against plaintiffs C and D.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “The court is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 28, 2015 to the date of full payment” in Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “from December 28, 2015 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the application form for modification of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim in this case, 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until January 11, 2017, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.” Since evidence submitted by the court of first instance and the fact inquiry results of the court of first instance lack to recognize the defendant’s assertion are stated in the reasoning of the judgment except for the rejection of the results of fact inquiry at H under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Thus, the plaintiff C and D's claims are justified, and they are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. The part against the defendant in excess of the above recognition amount among plaintiff C and D's part of the judgment of the court of first instance which partly differed from this conclusion violates the principle of disposition under Article 203 of the Civil Code (the plaintiff C and D violated the principle of disposition (the plaintiff's 1,00,000 won against the defendant and the part against the defendant, each of which is 5% per annum from December 28, 2015 until the delivery date of the copy of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of the complete payment, but the court of first instance revoked the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff C and D's 1,000,0000 and the remainder of the plaintiff's damages for delay calculated from December 28, 2015).