The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the recognition and determination of the facts of first instance are recognized as legitimate.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination under paragraph (2) below as to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is emphasized or added in this court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part against defendant B and E corporation of first instance, which is separate or finalized, except for the part against defendant B and corporation of first instance which are separate or finalized). 2.2.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① misleads B as the Director of the Secretariat of Defendant D Law Firm (hereinafter “Defendant D”), and made B easy access to the seals and documents of the Defendants, and jointly committed or aided the instant fraud by providing the account in the name of the Defendant legal entity (hereinafter “the instant account”). Although it was possible to anticipate B’s commission of fraud, Defendant C did not recover the instant account even if it could have anticipated B’s commission of fraud, and around March 11, 2016, Defendant C was liable to pay damages KRW 10 million and losses incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff by facilitating the commission of the instant crime by negligence in violation of the duty of due care, which should not be assisted by the tort, such as re-issuance of the instant account to B, thereby facilitating the Plaintiff’s fraud.

In addition, the defendant corporation, the representative director of the defendant C, suffered damages of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff as above due to the execution of duties by the defendant C, and thus, the defendant corporation is obligated to compensate for the above damages jointly with the defendant C as an employer under Article 210 of the Commercial Act or Article 7

② Defendant C promised to pay 30 million won as advisory fees from B and to pay 30 million won to B.