손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A, the main claim against the defendant B and C, and the conjunctive claim against the defendant should be dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as a conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in all.
[Supplementary or additional parts] On the fourth nine pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, “E. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 200 million by the end of March 2015 to KK, which prepared a loan certificate of KRW 200 million in the future of the Plaintiff at the time of granting the aforementioned advance business expenses to the Defendants.” The Plaintiff added “No. 4 and A No. 7” to 10 deeds [based on recognition].
"40,000,000 won" in the first and fifth 3 acts following the fourth instance judgment shall be deemed to be "200,000 won which has not been paid out of 400,000 won" each, and the fifth 4 acts shall be deemed to be "20,000,000 won" in the fifth 4 acts.
6. On the 6th five grounds of the judgment of the first instance, “If there is no master or documentary evidence,” the following is added: “In light of the fact that (a) there was a verbal agreement with the Plaintiff, but the pre-service expense, etc., delivered by the Plaintiff, was anticipated to be actually consumed for the purpose of carrying out the instant business, such as the receipt of contracts, etc., of the instant business, the evidence submitted in the instant case, such as the evidence stated in subparagraphs 4, 14-1 through 4, alone, is insufficient to recognize that there was a return agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff regarding the portion exceeding KRW 200
Following the 6th instance judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff could have known the fact that the Defendant C, who signed in the qualification, did not have the right of representation. In full view of the above facts of recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff could be seen as follows.