1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the rejection of witness E’s testimony by Plaintiff E, who seems consistent with the facts that Plaintiff A repaid KRW 3.5 billion, for the reasons indicated in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reason for rejecting the pertinent testimony by the witness E of the party - lies in the assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 3.5 billion to C, and the witness E of the party - gives testimony to the effect that the amount of KRW 3.5 billion borrowed by the Plaintiff was recovered to C, thereby making the testimony consistent with the above argument of the Plaintiff A.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleading as to the witness E’s testimony in each statement of Nos. 9-4, 5, 3, and 4-5 of the evidence No. 9-2, the witness E’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① E embezzled KRW 20.35 billion for corporate funds owned by C (cash 13.5 billion for cash). From May 4, 2012 to May 14, 2012, the total cash amounting to KRW 13.14 billion was recovered and the check amounting to KRW 6.5 billion was suspended. Meanwhile, E provided securities amounting to KRW 2.7 billion for corporate bonds owned by C as collateral and borrowed KRW 19 billion to J as corporate bonds. From May 11, 2012 to May 24, 2012, the fact that KRW 4.385 million was recovered.

As above, the amount recovered to C was revealed in its contents, and there was no data from which the loan to the Plaintiff was recovered.

② Rather, at the time of preparing the interrogation protocol of the prosecution as of May 5, 2012, E loaned KRW 6.5 billion in the name of K, and C around April 2012, it was well aware of the name and memory of the non-company company.

South. The loan documents can be memoryed in the same name.