The case holding that the above investment agreement was concluded by Eul's deception or deception, and that Eul company et al. had been aware of or could have known of it in accordance with Article 110 of the Civil Code, and that Byung company was obligated to refund the investment amount and damages for delay received from Byung company et al. to Byung company et al. for unjust enrichment, Byung company was obligated to pay Eul corporation et al. for unjust enrichment, and although Byung company was actually involved in Byung's business as alleged above, although Eul did not perform its duties such as monitoring and supervision of the first investment agreement at all, it did not perform its duties such as supervision and supervision of the first investment agreement and did not cause Gap company's losses due to Eul's fraudulent act and caused Gap company et al. to obtain the first investment amount by fraud, and thus Gap company et al. was obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the first investment amount suffered by Eul company et al. due to Eul's failure to perform its duties in accordance with Article 401 of the Commercial Code, since it did not set the purpose and purpose of its use and provided Byung's seal to Byung company Byung's business, and did not pay damages to Byung's losses.

Defendant 1 shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs KRW 236,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 7, 2017 to January 23, 2019, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All appeals filed by the Plaintiffs, Defendants 2 and 3, and Sam Young General Construction Company and the remaining appeals filed by Defendant 1 are dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1, 60% shall be borne by the plaintiffs, the remainder by the defendant 1, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 shall be borne by each party, and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Sam Young General Construction Co., Ltd. shall be borne by Sam Young General Construction Co.

For the plaintiffs, the 590,00,000 won and the 200,000,000 won and the 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment shall be paid jointly with the co-defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1") co-defendant 1 in the first instance trial.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiffs against the defendant 1 and 2 corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid additionally under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. ① The defendant 1 shall pay to the plaintiffs, ② the amount of 236,00,000 won jointly and severally with the non-party 1 and the defendant Sam Young General Construction Co., Ltd., and ② the amount of 80,000,000 won, jointly and severally with the non-party 1 and the defendant Sam Young General Construction Co., Ltd., and the amount of 15% interest per annum from the

B. Defendant 1

The part against Defendant 1 among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant 1 corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

C. The part against Defendant 2 in the judgment of the first instance against Defendant 2 is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant 2 as to the revocation part is dismissed.

D. Comprehensive construction of Defendant Sam Young-gu Co., Ltd.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the comprehensive construction of the defendant Sam Young Construction Corporation shall be revoked. The plaintiffs' claims against Sam Young Construction Corporation shall be dismissed.

A. Status of the Defendants

Defendant Sam Young General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company aimed at housing projects, construction business, etc., and Defendant 2 again served as the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd. from April 28, 201 to August 19, 2014; from August 19, 2014 to February 27, 2015; and from February 27, 2015 to September 2, 2016, Defendant 2 served as the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. Conclusion of the first investment agreement of the instant case

1) around December 2014, Nonparty 1 introduced that Nonparty 2 and Plaintiff 1, who actually operates the Plaintiff Company’s natural ventilation system, have already obtained consent from residents of Ulsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and six parcels of land (hereinafter “instant development project”), and that only if the application for the approval of the housing construction plan is filed, it will be sexually dead and there will be a lot of profits. Nonparty 1 would return the principal if the Plaintiffs invested KRW 60 million, and would pay 25% of the profits that the Plaintiff would obtain after completing the instant development project.

2) On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs concluded an investment agreement (hereinafter “instant first investment agreement”) with the Defendant Company as the Defendant Company’s KRW 600,000,000, and the Investment Business Fund for the Defendant Company (Execution Company) that was newly built in the redevelopment district in Ulsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted), and Nonparty 1 as the Defendant Company’s guarantor.

3) At the time of the preparation of the first written investment agreement (No. 1) No. 2 of this case, Defendant 1, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was not present, but Nonparty 1 stated the name of Defendant 1 and affixed his seal impression on the Defendant Company’s corporate seal.

4) However, on December 26, 2013, Nonparty 1 promoted the redevelopment project for the land outside the Ulsan District Court 2013dan4060, Ulsan District Court 2013, and around May 22, 2008, he applied for approval of the housing construction project plan to the Ulsan Metropolitan City Office, but did not obtain the consent of at least 80% of the residents, which is the approval requirements, and the above application was withdrawn from the Ulsan Metropolitan City Office on March 9, 2009, and the above project was not carried out thereafter, and even if he was paid the investment money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to receive the investment money and proceeds from the victim, and he purchased the above land under the name of 205 billion won from the victim 3, 200,700,000,000 won, and later 1.75 billion, 200,000 won.

5) The Plaintiffs did not know the fact that Nonparty 1 was convicted on January 29, 2015 in relation to the instant development project, and paid KRW 590 million in total by remitting the sum of KRW 370 million to the account in the name of the Defendant’s company from January 28, 2015 to December 17, 2015 pursuant to the said investment agreement and KRW 220 million to the account in the name of Nonparty 4 (including Nonparty 1’s husband) designated by Nonparty 1, as follows.

1. Non-party 2: 0,00 natural ventilation system of 0.10 on 2015 (name of 0.20,000 natural ventilation system of 0.10,000 on 28.205, 10,000 on 40.10,000 natural ventilation system of 0.10 on 10,005 (10,000 natural ventilation system of 0.10,005,000 on 40.10,000,000,000)

C. Conclusion of the second investment agreement of the instant case

1) On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs met Nonparty 1 in order to hear the progress of the instant development project, which they invested, and sought the statement that the progress of the project is delayed due to the shortage of funds from Nonparty 1, and concluded a re-investment agreement with the Defendant Company to additionally invest KRW 200 million in the instant development project (hereinafter “the instant secondary investment agreement”).

2) At the time of the preparation of the second written investment agreement (No. 6) of this case, Defendant 2, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was not present, but Nonparty 1 affixed the seal impression of the Defendant Company, which was in possession of an investment agreement under the name of the Defendant Company, and the notary public drafted the letter of the investment agreement as No. 66 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (No. 2016).

3) On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs transferred KRW 200 million to the account in the name of the Defendant Company pursuant to the instant secondary investment agreement.

D. The plaintiffs' criminal complaint

1) On January 22, 2016, Nonparty 1 was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months from the above court at the appellate court of Ulsan District Court 2015No221, and appealed to Supreme Court 2016Do2188, but the appeal was dismissed on April 8, 2016, and the sentence became final and conclusive.

2) After having become aware of the fact that Nonparty 1 was convicted of fraud in connection with the instant development project, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the police against Nonparty 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 on November 25, 2016 on the ground that Nonparty 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, by deceiving himself, concluded the instant investment agreement and acquired the investment amount of KRW 790 million in total. On January 3, 2017, Nonparty 1 was found to have been guilty of fraud from the public prosecutor of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office on January 3, 2017, but was unable to investigate the suspension of execution of punishment for health reasons from the Daegu Public Prosecutor’s Office on December 12, 2016 during the execution of the said conviction. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were dismissed on the ground that they did not directly file a complaint against the Plaintiffs and did not benefit from the investigation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The assertion

Defendant 2 and the Defendant Company asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful, on the condition that the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 transfer the area of 1,471 square meters ( Address 2 omitted), large 150 square meters ( Address 3 omitted), large 150 square meters, large 1,006 square meters to Nonparty 6, who are the wife of Plaintiff 1, in Gyeyang-si, in which Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 possessed under the name of the Defendant Company, to Nonparty 1.

B. Determination

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each of the above real estate was completed under the name of the defendant company on the ground of sale by voluntary auction on March 31, 2016, under the name of Ulsan District Court Yangsan District Court No. 17478 of March 31, 2016, and each of the above real estate was completed after July 13, 2016 by the registration office No. 43209 of July 15, 2016 of the same registry office on the ground of sale on July 13, 2016. However, it is insufficient to find that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and non-party 1 on the lawsuit, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise. Accordingly, the main part of the defendant company's safety and security is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance on the claim against the defendant company, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Determination as to claims against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs

A) At the time of the conclusion of each of the instant investment agreements, Nonparty 1 affixed the seal impression of the Defendant Company’s genuine corporate seal impression. As such, at the time of the instant first investment agreement, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the representative director of the Defendant Company, at the time of the instant second investment agreement, was the Defendant Company’s representative director, who was the Defendant Company, was the Defendant Company’s corporate seal impression or approved its use, and was paid investment money from the Plaintiffs pursuant to each of the instant investment agreements with the Defendant Company’s name. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were recruited with Nonparty 1, or aided and abetting Nonparty 1’s fraud, and thus, are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages as joint tort.

B) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, as the representative director of the Defendant Company, neglected to perform their duty of care to prevent the corporate seal impression from being used for the crime of Nonparty 1’s fraud, and as such, was negligent in executing each of the instant investment contracts under the name of the Defendant Company and making it easy for Nonparty 1 to acquire money equivalent to the investment money from the Plaintiffs. Therefore, they are obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by their breach of duties under Article 401 of the Commercial Act

2) Defendant 1’s assertion

Although there was a fact that Defendant 2 had been registered as the representative director at the time of the first investment agreement of this case, Defendant 2 kept the corporate seal as the representative director, and Defendant 1 did not know Nonparty 1 as well as was involved in the operation of Defendant Company, it is irrelevant to this case.

3) Defendant 2’s assertion

Defendant 2 is not liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages because he did not have participated in Nonparty 1’s illegal act. At the time of the second investment agreement of this case, at Nonparty 1’s request, Defendant 2 believed that he was the representative director of the Defendant Company, but was used for a purpose unrelated to the Plaintiffs, and issued the corporate seal impression of the Defendant Company, and Nonparty 1 did not know that the corporate seal impression was used for each of the investment agreements of this case. Therefore, Defendant 2 did not

B. Whether a joint tort liability exists with respect to Nonparty 1’s fraud

1) First, we examine whether Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 had intentionally participated in Nonparty 1’s tort. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 had intentionally participated in Nonparty 1’s deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, according to the overall purport of the entries and pleadings in the evidence No. 2 and No. 3, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 at the time of entering into each of the instant investment agreements; ② the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the purport that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 had by deceptioned their investments with Nonparty 1; ② the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2; ③ the Prosecutor of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office did not directly deception the Plaintiffs with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2; and ③ the Prosecutor of the Daegu District Prosecutor’s Office rejected the Plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that Nonparty 1 had led to the investment project.

2) Next, as an negligent aiding and abetting Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, whether joint tort liability with Nonparty 1 is recognized or not is recognized. Article 760(3) of the Civil Act imposes liability on an aiding and abetting person regarding the aiding and abetting person as a joint tortfeasor. Aid and abetting refers to all direct and indirect acts facilitating a tort, and includes not only cases by commission but also cases where a person responsible for an act makes it easier for a tortfeasor to commit a tort due to omission that does not take all measures to prevent it, and aid and abetting by negligence is also possible in the area of civil law where negligence is the same as that of a tort in principle for the purpose of compensating for damages. However, the content of negligence in this case refers to a violation of the duty of care on the premise that the aiding and abetting person has a duty of care not to assist a tort. Whether proximate causal causal relation exists should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the impact of aiding and abetting on the damage, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim, the degree of contribution to the prevention of damage by the victim, and the prevention of damage by himself/herself.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 of this case, even though it is recognized that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 had been the representative director at the time of the instant investment agreement, it is difficult to view that the representative director bears the above duty of care in relation to the plaintiffs as the obligation to keep corporate seal impression as the representative director is borne by the defendant company. The plaintiffs knew that Nonparty 1 was not the representative director on the defendant company's registry and confirmed the register of the defendant company and confirmed that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 was registered as the representative director of the defendant company. In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize causation between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's violation of the duty of care and the illegal act of Nonparty 1, and there is no other evidence to prove it differently.

3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that joint tort by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s intentional or negligent act is constituted, and this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

C. Existence of liability for damages caused by the representative director's breach of duty

1) Relevant legal principles

The liability for damages against a third party of a director under Article 401 (1) of the Commercial Act is a requirement for the director to neglect his/her duties intentionally or by gross negligence. Thus, the failure of the director to perform his/her duties cannot be deemed to have neglected his/her duties intentionally or by gross negligence on the sole basis of failure to perform his/her duties. However, where a director's act of loyalty and breach of duty of care is illegal, it constitutes an act of failure to perform his/her duties intentionally or by gross negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47316, Mar. 29, 2002). It constitutes a case where the director neglected his/her duties intentionally or by gross negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da47316, Mar. 29, 200). It is reasonable to see that the representative director's act of failure to perform his/her duties with the care of a good manager and has an obligation to faithfully perform his/her duties and pay attention to the whole affairs of the company.

2) Claim against Defendant 1

A) Determination on the cause of the claim

The facts that Defendant 1 entered as representative director in the corporate register of the defendant company at the time of the first investment agreement of this case are as mentioned above. The representative director of the defendant company delegated all of the duties as representative director to another director, etc. and the failure of the representative director to perform all of the duties of the representative director constitutes an act of violating the duty of loyalty and good-faith, and thus, even if it is merely a representative director under his name, the defendant 1 is liable for damages under Article 401 (1) of the Commercial Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da7044, Apr. 11, 2003; 2006Da2180, Sept. 8, 2006). Thus, although Defendant 1 entered only in the corporate register of the defendant company as representative director, it was actually not involved in the business of the defendant company, the defendant 1 entered into the first investment agreement of this case with the representative director in accordance with the agreement of this case as the act of deceit 1 and the plaintiffs suffered losses from the defendant 14's negligence.

B) Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion

(1) Claim that the director is not a legitimate director

First, Defendant 1 asserts to the effect that, upon Nonparty 7’s request, only registered as a nominal representative director was made, and that there was no appointment as a representative director or an internal director of the Defendant company or that there was no remuneration under the delegation contract with the Defendant company, Defendant 1 did not have a legitimate director of the Defendant company at the time of the first investment agreement.

Where a director is registered in a certificate of corporate registration, barring special circumstances, he/she shall be presumed to be a lawful director appointed through due procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da4409, Dec. 27, 1991). Since a person who has registered matters different from the facts intentionally or by negligence cannot oppose against a third party acting in good faith (see Article 39 of the Commercial Act), even though it is revealed that a third party has no decision to appoint a representative director after he/she believed and transacted as a legitimate representative director of the company, the company cannot deny the validity of the transaction against a third party acting in good faith. However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in subparagraph 1, B, and 4, even if he/she was appointed as a representative director and an internal director on August 19, 201, he/she was found to have not been aware of the facts stated in the certificate of corporate registration as the representative director on February 27, 201, the presumption that the above investment agreement had not been made by the board of directors of the defendant 1 was insufficient.

(2) The assertion that he resigned from the position of director

Next, Defendant 1 asserts that, around the end of December 2014, since Nonparty 7 and Defendant 2, who is the de facto representative of Defendant Company, lose their status as director by expressing their resignation as a director of Defendant Company, Defendant 1 does not bear any responsibility regarding the first investment agreement of this case, which was made after the resignation. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, Defendant 1, who was appointed as the representative director and the inside director of Defendant Company on August 19, 2014 and resigned on February 27, 2015, entered in the certificate of corporate registration, and Defendant 1 entered in the first investment agreement of this case as the representative director of Defendant Company. In light of the fact that Defendant 1 entered in the first investment agreement of this case as of February 27, 2015, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant 1 resigned from the representative director and the inside director of Defendant Company on December 2, 2014, and there is no reason to assert this.

(3) The plaintiffs' assertion that they should be exempted from liability with bad faith or gross negligence

In addition, Defendant 1 asserts that Defendant 1’s liability for damages against the Plaintiffs should be exempted by Defendant 1’s Commercial Act on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiffs knew that the activities of Defendant Company were not performed by Defendant 1’s performance of duties or did not know of gross negligence; and (b) Defendant 1 concluded the first investment agreement with Nonparty 1 without excluding Defendant 1; (c) Defendant 1’s liability for damages against the Plaintiffs. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 1’s liability for damages under Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act is exempted only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; and (d) the directors’ liability for damages under Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act was neglected to perform their duties with bad faith or gross negligence; and (e) the third party is liable for damages against the third party, regardless of the fact that the third party was negligent by negligence or gross negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da712401, Nov. 27, 2008).

3) Claim against Defendant 2

The following circumstances revealed through the entire purport of evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, and 16, namely, (i) Nonparty 1’s personal seal impression of the Defendant Company was issued to Nonparty 8, a manager of the Defendant Company, on the ground that Nonparty 1 had the Defendant Company’s corporate seal impression; (ii) the transferee was Nonparty 1; and (iii) Nonparty 8 did not transfer the corporate seal impression to Nonparty 1; or (iv) Nonparty 1 delivered the Defendant Company’s corporate seal impression upon Nonparty 1’s request, regardless of the second investment agreement, regardless of the purpose of use and purpose of use; and (v) Defendant 2 appears to have caused damages to Nonparty 1’s personal seal impression of the Defendant Company by failing to pay the Plaintiffs for his own business without giving due interest to Nonparty 1; and (v) Defendant 2 appears to have caused damages to Nonparty 1’s personal seal impression in light of the fact that Nonparty 1 had been aware of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression in the name of the Plaintiff’s investment account.

4) Scope of liability for damages

A) According to the above facts, due to Defendant 1’s neglect of duties, the Plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to KRW 590 million of the investment amount under the instant primary investment agreement, and KRW 200 million of the investment amount under the instant secondary investment agreement due to Defendant 2’s neglect of duties, and thus, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the amount of damages equivalent to each of the said investments. Furthermore, such damages are basically arising from Nonparty 1’s fraud or deception and the liability for return of unjust enrichment, which the Defendant Company bears overlaps with the cause and scope of responsibility. As such, each of the Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s damages liability overlaps with Nonparty 1’s damages liability, Defendant Company’s unjust enrichment refund liability, and Defendant 2’s unjust enrichment refund liability, to the extent that the amount overlaps with that of the amount.

B) Defendant 1 asserts that the scope of his/her liability for damages is limited to KRW 200 million deposited in the Defendant Company’s account from August 19, 2014 to February 27, 2015, in which he/she held office as the representative director of the Defendant Company. However, the scope of his/her liability for damages is limited as above, since the Plaintiffs paid KRW 590 million to the accounts held in the name of the Defendant Company or Nonparty 4 over 21 times from January 28, 2015 to December 17, 2015, all of which were paid by Defendant 1 through the accounts held in the name of the Defendant Company or Nonparty 4, Defendant 1’s neglect to perform his/her duties, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s liability for damages is limited as above.

C) However, even in the case of liability for damages against a third party by a director under Article 401 of the Commercial Act, it is reasonable to view that the liability for damages can be limited by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the reason why the director failed to perform his/her duties in light of the general principle of compensation for damages, the background leading up to the failure to perform his/her duties, the form of violation, the objective circumstances involved in the occurrence and expansion of damages, and the degree thereof,

① Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 appear to have not been directly involved in the development project of this case or each of the investment agreements of this case. ② The investment agreement of this case does not seem to have acquired any personal benefits due to each of the investment agreements of this case. ③ The Plaintiffs were able to attract Nonparty 1 to a high profit rate without careful review as to the progress of the development project of this case and the possibility of profit-making, and made an investment in a rush manner. The Plaintiffs appear to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages. ④ In particular, in the case of Defendant 1, Defendant 1 was temporarily employed as the representative director of the Defendant company from August 19, 2014 to February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs and Defendant 2 did not appear to have been to have been directly involved in the development project of this case and each of the investment agreements of this case. Considering that the remaining KRW 340 million,000,000,000 won, excluding the total damages of Defendant 1 and Nonparty 201,000,00 won.

D) Accordingly, the plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable to the extent that the amount overlaps with the non-party 1 and the defendant company, and the defendant 1 is liable to pay 236 million won, which is 40% of the investment amount under the first investment agreement of this case, and the defendant 2 is liable to pay 120 million won, which is 60% of the investment amount under the second investment agreement of this case, as well as damages for delay.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from February 7, 2017 to January 23, 2019, which is the date of the judgment of the party where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to whether Defendant 1 is liable for performance and the scope of performance after the plaintiffs served on Defendant 1 with a copy of the complaint of this case, which is KRW 236 million jointly and severally with the non-party 1 and the defendant company. ② Defendant 2 is jointly and severally with the non-party 1 and the defendant company to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 120 million per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day until the day of full payment, to the day of full payment, and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15,00,000 from the day when the copy of complaint of this case, which the plaintiffs expressed their intent to seek performance, to 201.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant company shall be accepted as reasonable, and the claims against the defendant 1 and 2 shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no reason. Since the part against the defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant 1 is partially unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant 1 ordering payment in excess of the above recognition amount shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 1 as to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the remaining appeal by the defendant 1 and the plaintiffs against the defendant 1 and 2 and the appeal by the defendant company against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed as there is no reason.

Judges Lee E-gu (Presiding Judge)

1) The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established since the seal imprint of the Defendant Company, affixed with the said investment agreement, is identical with the seal imprint of the Defendant Company’s employee seal imprint (the above employee seal imprint was affixed to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company’s certificate issued on January 2, 2015 was attached) on February 5, 2015. Defendant 1 asserts to the effect that the instant first investment agreement was forged at the trial, but there is no evidence to reverse the foregoing presumption and to acknowledge that the said investment agreement was forged.