1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The plaintiffs filed a principal suit against the defendant for damages on the ground of tort caused by false accusation. Accordingly, the defendants filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as a counterclaim against the plaintiff, claiming compensation for damages on the ground of the illegal act caused by embezzlement or deception, preliminary claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the plaintiff Eul filed a lawsuit for prior claim for compensation for damages against the plaintiff Eul.

The judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted the claim of the plaintiff A among the main claim, dismissed the plaintiff B's claim, dismissed the main claim against the plaintiff A among the counterclaim claims, and partly accepted the conjunctive claim, and dismissed the claim against the plaintiff B.

Accordingly, the scope of appeal is limited to the part against the Defendants among the counterclaim claims. Therefore, the scope of the trial on the appeal is limited to the above part.

2. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s citing this judgment is that part of the reasoning of the court of first instance, including the judgment on the allegations of the parties added in the trial, is as stated in the reasoning of the relevant part of the court of first instance, except for the case where a dismissal is made as set forth in the following paragraph (3). Thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main text of Article

3. Parts to be dried;

A. Nos. 13 through 3 of the first instance judgment, the “1,366,630 won to construct a new building on the ground of the instant real estate” was added to “1,366,630 won to construct a new building on the ground of the instant real estate.”

B. The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. Article 3-3(d)(2)(d)(14) of the judgment.

(D) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent KRW 5,432,00 as the food cost of the person who introduced the instant real estate and the new construction worker, but even if the Plaintiff paid the said cost, the Defendants were to have paid the said cost.