Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The basic facts of the claim ① The defendant came to know of the "D" (which appears to be a multi-level investment company with its head office in Hong Kong; hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") through pro-friendly C, and thereafter invested money in the non-party company; ② the investment was transferred by the investor to the head office or D branch office, the investor's ID, account and e-money were issued or paid to the investor; the investor appears to have opened the e-mone (which means the e-mone account, such as multi-level transaction) and extracted crypt; ③ the plaintiff was aware of the source of the investment in the non-party company and the defendant through E and the defendant; ③ the plaintiff was responsible for the investment in the non-party company's account; ④ the plaintiff was paid the investment in the non-party company's 301 and 401 after the deposit of the funds to the non-party company (the plaintiff's investment in this case was made to the non-party company.)