1. The Plaintiff, among the parts against Defendant C in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the amount ordering the payment below.

1. On December 9, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7.9 million to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (former trade name: D: hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”); the Defendant Co., Ltd. paid KRW 7.9 million to the Defendant Co., Ltd., the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”); and the Defendant Co., Ltd. operates Gless Store Start-up Business

2) The contract to support (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”)

A) The Plaintiff concluded the instant contract. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant Company KRW 100,00,000 on November 22, 201, KRW 900,000,000 on December 2, 2011, and KRW 3 million on December 9, 2011 as down payment. Defendant E and F were in office as a director of the Defendant Company at the time of the instant contract. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) Around November 201, 201, the Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 3 million with the Defendant Company to return the instant advertisement and contact with the Defendant Company. Defendant E and F, who was a director of the Defendant Company, had the Plaintiff make a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff may obtain a profit of KRW 3 million or more per month through the instant business even though it was clear that the instant business was almost not able to be carried out at the time, and that the Plaintiff would have the Defendant Company pay KRW 3 million to the Defendant Company.

As such, the Defendants had the Plaintiff enter into the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff by taking advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff is the basic livelihood recipient and is a disabled person, and is in the state of old-age, rashness, and inexperience, the instant contract constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act and thus null and void, or constitutes a juristic act by deception under Article 110 of the

Therefore, the plaintiff revoked the contract of this case with the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and the defendants are entitled to claim restitution of unjust enrichment due to the invalidation or cancellation of the contract of this case, with the amount of KRW 3 million and interest thereon.