(a) Description of claims: To describe the cause of claims and the changed cause of claims as shown in the annex;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. It is not sufficient to recognize that the statement in the evidence No. 1 to No. 8 of the claim against Defendant C alone with the Defendant C conspired with the Plaintiff to acquire the purchase price from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 9, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigative agency on the ground that "the plaintiff would purchase 165m2 (hereinafter "the real estate in this case") from defendant Eul and defendant Eul (the trade name prior to the change of the defendant) operated by defendant Eul on October 26, 2012, and paid 34 million won in the purchase price, but the above defendants acquired the above price by deceit without complying with the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate in this case." However, it is difficult for the prosecutor to regard the money the plaintiff paid to the defendant company as the planned real estate company, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff acquired the money by deceiving the plaintiff, and it is hard to conclude that the plaintiff acquired the money by deceiving the plaintiff, and there is no suspicion of lack of evidence due to lack of evidence, and therefore the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Eul is without merit.

(The claim against the Preliminary Defendant Company is not judged separately as long as the claim against the primary Defendant B is accepted). 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the Defendant B is justified, and the claim against the Defendant C and the Defendant Company is dismissed as it is without merit.