All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment as set forth below 2 is added with respect to the assertion that the Defendants are satisfied on the grounds of appeal by this court.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant C’s assertion 1) On July 3, 2017, when concluding an agreement with the founder of the instant pharmacy on the name of G and the building, Defendant C agreed to provide the credit amount of KRW 200 million to K (hereinafter “K”) when returning the lease deposit, and agreed to provide a later compensation of KRW 30 million for the installation cost, such as the packaging machine, and did not agree to pay KRW 230 million for all of the drugs packaging machines and drug packaging machines and pharmacies, on the premise that such agreement exists, the amount of the former credit amount of Defendant C’s credit amount of KRW 730 million to the Plaintiffs on the premise that such agreement exists (i.e., the obligation to return the deposit amount of KRW 50 million) is unreasonable.

2) However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and in this court as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, Defendant C agreed to recognize KRW 230 million on the basis of the following: (a) around July 2017: (b) the package of G or L/ Drugs, and the two package of drugs and medicine, and (c) the premium, etc.; and (b) the amount of KRW 230 million on the basis of the amount of money and premiums

It is reasonable to see that Defendant C directly consulted with G or L.

Even if the lease agreement on the instant pharmacy was terminated and the settlement of claims and obligations arising from the closure of the instant pharmacy was reached between Defendant C and the lessee, the principal owner of the lessor’s building, who contributed to the full amount of the lease deposit equivalent to KRW 500 million.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the defendant C's act is different from the above.