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

A. Defendant B is the representative director of Plaintiff D, a financial product dealer, and Defendant C is the person who established E (hereinafter “E”).

B. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff visited the Seoul public relations center of E, and on September 12, 2016, visited the head office located in Daejeon E.

C. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 70,000,000 into G Account Co., Ltd.

Defendant C was detained on September 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10, Eul evidence 9, 10, 16 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff committed a tort by actively deceiving the Plaintiff and allowing the Plaintiff to pay the investment money to E by deceiving the Plaintiff with the intent to pay the Plaintiff 5% of the monthly profit by making an investment in collusion with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the said investment money.

B. In light of the judgment, the facts that Defendant B introduced investment in Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s advice on the investment decision and the publicity explanation of Defendant C’s company are acknowledged, but the investment product is premised on the uncertainty of the original profit generation, and the testimony by the witness and witness H alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B induced the Plaintiff by guaranteeing the principal and profit in a definite manner, and that Defendant C acted in collusion with the deception by Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 17-1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the defendant B as the cause of the claim in this case, which is the same as the cause of the claim in this case, as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud, but it is only recognized that the non-prosecution disposition was rendered on January 2, 2020.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's defendants are examined.