1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for this part of the plaintiffs' assertion are as follows. The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 16 through 15) is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the defendant's "the defendant" of the third, 17, and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be "the co-defendant of the court of first instance". (b) Thus, it is acceptable

2. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. If the purport of the argument is added to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7 as a result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the National Bank of the court of first instance, the deceased purchased the building of this case from M on October 4, 2006, and the plaintiff A transferred KRW 150 million to M on November 3, 2006, and the deceased borrowed KRW 250 million from the above plaintiff on January 16, 2009.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 10-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 10-1 and 3, and each evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the first instance court’s first instance court’s order to submit financial transaction information to the Korea C&C Bank, the new bank, the Korean Bank, and the NH Nonghyup Bank, as a whole, and the entire purport of the arguments:

The facts acknowledged in this paragraph and the evidence cited in this paragraph are insufficient to recognize that the deceased actually borrowed the above money from the above plaintiff or agreed to pay it to the above plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1. On February 16, 2015, approximately two years and two months after the deceased died, the said Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and on January 16, 2009, on the first complaint, lent KRW 250 million to the deceased on January 16, 2009.

Although the Defendants asserted that they were able to raise a strong question about the leased facts itself, they argued otherwise as the reasons for the lending, as described in paragraph 1, through the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim dated May 10, 2017.

2. The Deceased, on October 4, 2006, shall be KRW 45 million for M and the instant building.