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 reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the part of “determination on Defendant E and F’s assertion” of the first instance judgment is the same as the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following parts: thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on Defendant E and F’s assertion

A. At the time of the purchase of the alleged real estate in this case, Defendant G engaged in all transactions, such as concluding a sales contract on behalf of Defendant G, and paid the purchase price to himself. Defendant E and F sent Defendant G the total amount of KRW 18,000,000 on September 24, 2008, and the total amount of KRW 5,000,000 on October 15, 2009, and KRW 15,000,000 on January 15, 2009, and the remainder of KRW 5,000,000 agreed that Defendant F would be deducted from the purchase price by offsetting the existing claim to Defendant G. Thus, Defendant E and F cannot be said to have a duty to pay money under the instant payment rejection.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 1, 12,000,000 won out of the remitted money, Defendant Eul remitted each of the above J accounts to I on September 24, 2008, 5,000,000 won, and 8,000,000 won on January 15, 2009, and 15, 200,000 won from the above J account in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings. Defendant G again remitted from the above J account to I on January 15, 2009, 100,000 won.

4. Recognizing the fact that each remitted of KRW 8,00,000 to 28.8,000, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants’ obligations owed to I under the instant payment note were extinguished due to performance within the scope of KRW 12,00,000.

The plaintiffs asserted that the above 12,00,000 won that Defendant G remitted to Defendant G was not paid as the purchase price for the instant real estate but as the separate debt repayment that Defendant G bears to Defendant G. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone.