Law Firm Jeong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Choi Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. C sells online products in a multi-level manner as if profits are generated through the bitcoin transaction using the artificial intelligence computer called artificial intelligence computer, and sells online products as if profits are paid. G manages accounts and profits of its members through the website (E and F, hereinafter “instant website”). From January 2016 to October 2017, H Co., Ltd. H (hereinafter “instant company”) established to sell the said Onnuri products domestically as a first-class seller in the Republic of Korea from January 2016 to October 2017 (hereinafter “the instant company”), while actually operating the instant company, which is established to sell the said Onnuri products in Korea, (hereinafter “the instant company”), is recruited investors in connection with the business investing the said Onnuri products to many and unspecified persons (hereinafter “the instant business”), and was issued from the investors in the multi-level manner.

B. An investor who invested in the instant project shall join the instant website as a member and hold an account corresponding to the investment amount (generally KRW 130-14 million shall hold one account if the investment amount is paid). It must undergo the procedure that a member who has joined the instant website has access to his own account and create a new account to the lower account. If the said investor is a route by entering the account and password in the instant website, the so-called C Point (hereinafter referred to as “instant point”) is indicated with the profits indicated as USD and bitcoin in the account.

C. Members registered on the website of this case may purchase, transmit, or recover the points of this case contained on the website of this case via the website of this case, and may purchase the investment goods of this case by using the points of this case. The above members may apply for the recovery of the points of this case to C, which is the operator of the website of this case. In this case, C shall, at the time of recovery, convert the points of this case into the market price of non-coin and withdraw them as non-coin (hereinafter referred to as the "C recovery procedure"). Meanwhile, the company of this case, upon receiving a request from domestic investors of the business of this case for the payment of the profits accrued from the investment of this case, paid to the above investors in Korean won per average USD 1,100 per the point of this case, instead, the above investors transmitted the points of this case to the G account of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "stock exchange procedure of this case").

D. On April 17, 2017, the Defendant concluded a branch contract with the instant company and operated the surplus points of the instant company as a branch head from that time.

E. From July 2017 to November 201, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 229 million (hereinafter “the instant payment”) from the Plaintiff several times, and as a result, transferred the instant points corresponding to the Plaintiff’s account C (hereinafter “instant agreed points”) to the Plaintiff’s account.

F. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are investors who invested in the instant project by either paying investment money to the instant company or purchasing the points of this case. The Plaintiff recommended investment in the instant project to a branchr around October 2017. Accordingly, the Plaintiff invested in the instant project by paying the investment amount of KRW 260 million (hereinafter “the instant investment amount”) to the Defendant. Of the instant investment amount, KRW 598 million was paid to the Defendant via the Plaintiff.

G. On October 2018, the Seoul High Court explained that “G may obtain high profits if it invests in the instant business in C while soliciting investors in the instant business, but the Seoul High Court: (a) however, it does not make sure that D’s substance and revenue possibility is unclear; (b) the point in this case is not cashed as it is; (c) and (d) the investors are not bitcos corresponding to the point in this case; (b) thus, it is impossible for the investors to raise a considerable amount of income as stated in the investment explanation; and (d) G was fully aware of such circumstances, thereby convicted of committing fraud, etc., of deceiving investors by deceiving them, and sentenced G to a six-year conviction, and the said conviction became final and conclusive thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, 8 (including paper numbers), Gap 3-1, Eul 2, 3, 7, 9 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's defense

The plaintiff claims the warranty liability under Article 579 of the Civil Code with respect to the sale of points in the contract of this case, and the exclusion period of 6 months from the date of the bill applicable to the above warranty liability has been exceeded.

B. Determination

Article 582 of the Civil Code does not apply to the warranty against defects under Article 579 of the Civil Code, and there is no legal basis to regard the warranty against defects under Article 579 of the Civil Code as being applicable to the warranty against defects under Article 579 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the defendant's defense under the premise that the warranty period is applicable to the warranty against defects under Article 579 of the Civil Code claimed by

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The cancellation of the instant sales contract and the claim for restoration of its original status based on the warranty liability under Article 579(2) of the Civil Act

The point in this case is a kind of claim for the return of investment money and earnings that the holder of the point in this case has with respect to C. However, the Defendant, upon recommending the Plaintiff to purchase the point in this case, could exchange the point in Korean currency at any time. As such, the Defendant, upon purchasing the point in this case and investing in the business in this case, guaranteed C’s self-sufficiency at the maturity date of the contract point in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased the contract point in this case by paying KRW 2229 million to the Defendant. However, as of now, C cannot proceed with the collection procedure of C which collects the contract in this case from non-concept, and after G fraud is detained, the Plaintiff could not proceed with the procedure of the company in this case. Accordingly, pursuant to the warranty liability under Article 579(2) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff cancelled the contract in this case and the seller’s compensation for delay, which is the debtor, pursuant to the contract in this case’s cancellation of the contract in this case.

2) Claim as one of the joint tortfeasors, based on joint immunity and subrogation by the drawee

The Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff of such circumstances with full knowledge that the instant project, which is a multi-level structure, could not be maintained or could not lead to profit in the long term, because information about C’s structure of profit, the twitccoin’s principle, whether transactions are possible, and whether to maintain the return on the long-term product, etc. In addition, the Plaintiff recommended the Defendant to make an investment by stating that “I may obtain a profit at least 10% per month when investing in the instant project as before the Defendant, the principal may be guaranteed and the monthly income may be obtained.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff made an investment of KRW 260 million in the instant project. Ultimately, the Plaintiff by negligence notified the I of the false fact that the principal amount of the instant project is guaranteed and that the return on profit is at least 10% per month. The Defendant aided and aided thereby resulting in joint tort, thereby causing damage to the amount of the instant investment amount.

The plaintiff and the defendant, as the joint tortfeasor, are liable to pay I damages for the above tort to I. The plaintiff paid 59.8 million won to I as part of the above damages, and jointly discharged the defendant. Since there is no part of the plaintiff's liability in the internal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no part of the plaintiff's liability between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff as the joint tortfeasor shall claim for the above 59.8 million won as the substitute subrogation and the damages for its delay, according to the right to indemnity arising from the repayment of more than

B. Determination

1) As to the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the claim for restoration from the original state based on the warranty liability under Article 579(2) of the Civil Act

A) Article 579(2) of the Civil Act provides, “When a seller of a claim that fails to reach the due date secures the obligor’s financial ability, it shall be presumed that the seller has secured the obligor’s financial ability.” However, in addition to the general provisions on liability for warranty, the Civil Act specifically provides for cases where the seller secures the obligor’s financial ability in the sale and purchase of a claim as above in addition to the general provisions on liability for warranty, the seller cannot know the obligor’s financial ability, and is outside the controlled area of the seller, so that the seller does not, in principle, bear the seller’s liability for warranty, separately from the defect in general payment. However, it is deemed that the seller is liable only when the seller secures the obligor’s

B) Examining each of the evidence cited earlier, as well as each of the statements and images of evidence Nos. 8, 10, and 11 in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles that are acknowledged as being added to the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant entered into a special agreement with the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant secured C’s financial ability at the maturity of the instant contract points at the time of the instant contract points trading, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for restitution on the premise that the defendant bears the warranty liability under Article 579 (2) of the Civil Code is without merit.

(1) The points in this case can only be used for purposes of re-investment in new C’s investment products until they go through C’s recovery procedures or the company’s exchange procedures, not for itself have fixed economic value. Also, C’s terms and conditions which the Plaintiff subscribed to the website of this case (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) shall not be held liable for losses or losses arising from the use of services or the character of virtual currency and digital assets or for failure to understand such currency markets. It is a method by which us may exchange, trade and store certain virtual currency and digital assets, and it does not provide any statement or guarantee for the value, stability or legality of such virtual currency (Article 13(1) of the instant terms and conditions), and “The possibility that changes in the current terms and conditions of the instant terms and conditions of the instant contract may not occur in a short period of time due to changes in the value of the instant virtual currency to the market (Article 13(1) of the instant contract)” (Article 13 of the current terms and conditions). It can be understood that there may be changes in the digital currency market value and losses in the digital market(3).

(2) In the course of the sale of points in the agreement of this case, the Defendant, a seller, did not prepare a document stating the purport that the Defendant secured the financial resources of C or the instant company, which is the debtor. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not hold any consultation as to whether to compensate for the failure to recover the points in the future, and the handling of points in the agreement of this case. In addition, Article 25(2) of the terms and conditions of this case provides that “A member of the instant agreement shall not guarantee that the purpose of C, including important risks, will be achieved.”

(3) The Plaintiff asserts that “the maturity date of the instant agreed points is when the Plaintiff requests money exchange to C,” and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant, at the time of the sale of the instant agreed points, bears the risk of guaranteeing C’s financial ability at the future maturity to be determined solely by the Plaintiff’s intent, despite the possibility of economic value fluctuations and losses due to the characteristics of the instant point, such as paragraph (1). In addition, the Plaintiff was an investor who was investing in the instant business by remitting a considerable amount of investment money to the instant company already operated by G around May 2017 and around June 2017, prior to the purchase of the instant agreed points from the Defendant, and actively recommended other persons to make an investment in the instant business at the cheon Branch of the instant company, the characteristics of the point in this case, such as paragraph (1), are sufficiently aware.

2) As to the joint immunity as one joint tortfeasor and the claim based on subrogation by the person who has performed the obligation

Article 13(17) of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides that "All the activities performed through the accounts of your own, and all the other commitments included in the terms and conditions of this case shall not be deemed to be entirely responsible" under Article 17 of the Terms and Conditions of this case, and Article 25(2) of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides that "No guarantee shall be made that C members will achieve the objectives of this case, including important risks," and any one having accounts as investors in the business of this case, which is deemed to have been subscribed to the web site of this case with the agreement of this case stating the above contents as above, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by adding to the whole purport of oral argument." Article 13(17) of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides the plaintiff or the defendant with information about the investment of this case, which is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant had made an investment in the business of this case, and there is no clear evidence that the defendant had made an investment in the business of this case, as an investment of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for subrogation based on the premise that the defendant constitutes a joint tortfeasor who committed the above joint tort is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.