1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiffs.

2. The amount of money recorded in the column for claim on the ticket and each of them shall be recorded on the same date.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a company that sells sound vibration exercise equipment and engages in chain recruitment business.

E (President), F (Representative), G, and Defendants (Advisors) served as executive officers of D, and the Defendants were in charge of the management of the equipment and the inspection of the actual operating conditions of local sales boards and agencies.

B. Around December 13, 2014, D entered into a sales and consignment contract with the Plaintiffs from June 2013 to May 2015, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) around December 13, 2014, the Plaintiff sold 15,400,000 tons of the instant Plaintiff’s lebalum balsium to the said Plaintiff; (b) on consignment, the Plaintiff agreed to pay a profit while operating the said equipment upon entrustment; and (c) received the purchase price from the Plaintiffs.

C. On September 24, 2015, the Defendants were convicted of violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, violation of the Regulation on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and fraud, and the said judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

The Defendants’ criminal facts are as follows: “The Defendants conspired with E, F, and G, and even if D sells sports equipment to the victims including the Plaintiffs and re-entrusted with it, it is impossible to pay the victims the proceeds of covering the principal. However, from June 3, 2013 to June 2, 2015, the Defendants acquired KRW 819,202,285,00 in total as the purchase price for the apparatus.” The above criminal facts are as follows.

each purchase price stated in the subsection is included.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 4 evidence, each entry of Gap 2 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the establishment of a joint tort, if there is no need for common or common recognition among the joint tortfeasors, and there is an objective common nature related to each act of the joint tortfeasor, and if damage was incurred due to the relevant joint act, the liability for such damage cannot be exempted.

Supreme Court Decision 99 delivered on September 1998