2. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant C and the defendant D.

The plaintiff is a Canadian national business who serves as the representative director of the intervenor company, and the defendant company is a corporation engaged in the business of producing and planning records, and the defendant C is the representative director of the defendant company.

On April 14, 2016, the Intervenor purchased 41,66 shares of the Defendant Company owned by Defendant C and 1,000 shares of FF Co., Ltd. totaling KRW 2.5 billion, and entered into a share sales contract and convertible bonds contract with the Defendant Company to acquire convertible bonds issued by the Defendant Company at KRW 1 billion and invest KRW 3.5 billion in total (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant investment contract”), and set the closing date on April 29, 2016 or on other dates agreed by the parties.

On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 350 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) from the account in the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant Company.

On July 6, 2016, the Defendant Company decided to hold a board of directors to issue convertible bonds of KRW 1 billion to a third party, held a temporary general meeting of shareholders to appoint an intervenor representative G as other non-executive directors. On the same day, the Defendant Company entered into a separate contract on the adjustment of shares between shareholders and intervenors.

In the event that the instant investment contract did not run any longer, on December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a mail claiming repayment to Defendant C by asserting that the instant amount was a loan and served on December 26, 2017. Accordingly, Defendant C responded to the purport that the instant amount was confiscated due to nonperformance of the contract, which was an investment contract that was paid by the Defendant Company as performance guarantee to the Defendant Company, other than a loan, on January 4, 2018.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 6, Eul 1 through 7, and Eul 9, and a summary of ex officio intervention in the whole pleadings as to the legitimacy of an independent party intervention, the plaintiff's money of this case.