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

A. On June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff (formerly referred to as “D”) entered into a dynamic contract with Limited Liability Company C (General E; hereinafter “Limited”) and transferred KRW 37,504,000 in total to E’s account.

B. On July 28, 2014, August 6, 2014, and August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded a limited liability company to recover the said investment amount.

C. E, a general interest rate for limited construction, was the birth of F, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and resigned on July 15, 2014. The Defendant is the head of a limited construction, and the actual shareholders of limited construction are Defendant, G, H, and I.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, 27, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 11 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s primary claim is determined as follows: (a) although the limited company that entered into the instant investment contract with the Plaintiff filed a report with the Plaintiff on the instant claim, it did not have any report or settlement until August 2014; (b) the company retired from office around July 2014; and (c) on or around January 2015, the company lost its agricultural core agency authority, which was the cause of the instant investment contract, which was the cause of the instant investment contract; (d) the limited company is liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 47,270,986 (i.e., compensation for damages arising from nonperformance of obligation (= KRW 37,504,000) (i.e., KRW 37,504,000), and (ii) the Defendant’s personal company with the 100% management authority, which was merely a debtor’s status, may not be permitted to be in violation of the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the evidence presented by the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s primary claim.