1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 36 million and 5% per annum from May 16, 2017 to May 8, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 2014, E established F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and run the same fund-raising business using the so-called “multi-level organization.” Defendant C, among the 18 branches of Nonparty Company, served as the head of the G branch office among the 18 branches of Nonparty Company, and Defendant D, as the investor recruitment policy of the G branch.

B. On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared an investment agreement stating that “E is a representative director, or more than half of the company’s shares are in fact owned by E, using investment funds in domestic and foreign companies, guaranteeing the profit dividends of 2% per month, and refund the investment funds after one year,” and deposited KRW 10 million to E on the same day.

The Plaintiff received a certificate of loan that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 36 million from December 28, 2015 to December 28, 2016, KRW 14 million, and KRW 30 million from January 18, 2016, and KRW 30 million from March 7, 2016, respectively.” On the other hand, the Plaintiff prepared an investment agreement on the said content, and around December 28, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 36 million from the Defendants from December 28, 2015 to December 28, 2016.”

C. On February 3, 2017, E was prosecuted as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Door-to-Door Sales Act, and was convicted of 12 years of imprisonment (Seoul Central District Court 2016Gohap932), the appellate court was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment on September 13, 2017 (Seoul High Court 2017No595), and on December 13, 2017, the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive (Supreme Court 2017Do1623).

The plaintiff did not recover at all the above investment principal KRW 90 million.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1 to 11, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Defendants asserted that they were the investors recruitment policy of the non-party company, and in collusion with E, the representative director of the non-party company, who is the representative director of the non-party company, did not have the ability to repay the principal and interest by operating the funds normally even if they were to receive investments from the Plaintiff, deceiving the Plaintiff as if they were to repay the principal and interest.