2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. C was aware of Plaintiff A in the course of consulting, etc. on the customer’s financial design while working as a asset manager at the Defendant Company, and around December 26, 2012, it explained that “D has a firm that has shown the U.S. P. P. P. P. P. D. P. purchase of non-guaranteed corporate bonds issued by the Company, the principal shall be returned without a framework on the payment date agreed between 1 and 2 years, and the principal shall be guaranteed if the termination is filed three months prior to the termination of the termination. The interest rate is 14.18% if the monthly payment is made, and 15% if the annual payment is made. It is possible to purchase bonds with a large interest rate.”

B. However, fact is that D purchased the corporation immediately before the closure of business in E, and it was merely a stage of preparing to proceed with the U.S. PC business that was manufactured in China to create new profits due to the poor operation of the existing PC business, and whether it was successful or not there was no domestic market, etc., and it was aimed at using the money received from the Plaintiff A as business funds, as well as at paying the principal or interest to the preferred investors. Thus, C did not have any intent or ability to return the principal during the agreed period, or to pay the agreed interest, even if receiving the money from the said Plaintiff.

C. C was granted KRW 350 million from the Plaintiffs (Plaintiff A, KRW 190 million, KRW 160 million, Plaintiff B, KRW 160 million) on eight occasions, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 2] from the date of the crime committed from June 11, 2014, stating that the purchase of the D’s non-guaranteed bonds would guarantee and re-purchase the pension within two years, and would pay interest, and trusting that amounting to KRW 20 million.

C paid some of the money to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs.