2. C

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

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

A. From August 1, 2015 to October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff was working as a member of the sales team consisting of Defendant B as the head of the sales team at the D apartment sales office (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales office”) in Sungsung-si, D apartment sales office (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales office”). Defendant C is a male-child group of Defendant B, who works as the head of the sales team in the instant sales office.

B. On Aug. 10, 2015, the Defendants, who worked together in the instant sales office, proposed that the Plaintiff shall return double the profits to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff shall transfer KRW 20 million to the account in the name of the Defendant C on Aug. 10, 2015.

C. However, since the Defendants did not refund the investment principal and the proceeds after November 5, 2015, which was decided to return them, they shall be entitled to the payment of the remaining amount after deducting the payment to be seen below.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received each payment of KRW 10 million on January 8, 2016, including the return of the principal of the investment and the revenue, KRW 3,755,00 on September 10, 2016, and KRW 2,086,30 on December 2, 2016.

2. Determination

According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to Defendant C’s account from August 10, 2015 to the husband E’s account. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants agreed to return twice the principal invested by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as a cycle of return profits. Rather, in full view of the entire purport of the pleadings as a result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to F Co., Ltd. in this court, the Plaintiff invested KRW 20 million to Defendant B’s representative director H, an agent of the G District Housing Association, and the Plaintiff transferred money to Defendant C in order to collect and transfer money in accordance with the process of investing with Defendant B, and the F Co., Ltd. was changed to F Co., Ltd. (the latter change to F Co., Ltd.).

(B) It is recognized that the Plaintiff received the sales agency contract for the apartment newly constructed in the above housing association and the sales agency contract for the apartment, and that the company M (or Shin & Shin, Co., Ltd.) paid the proceeds from the sales to the Plaintiff as part of the investment principal and the proceeds. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Defendants agreed to return the said investment principal and the proceeds is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.