1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. A. Around September 7, 2009, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and D, which had a close relationship with the Plaintiff, borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and thereafter returned KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, and did not explain the specific purpose of the money, and requested the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff included the money in Defendant C’s passbook that is liable for inside and outside,” and the Plaintiff trusted D and inserted the money into Defendant C’s account.

However, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that Defendant C again added the said money to Defendant C, and that Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant B raised the said money from the Plaintiff to use the said money as a rain fund for designation of the special complex for the long-term and long-term financial complex. If the Plaintiff knew of the foregoing circumstances, it would have not given KRW 100 million to D or not to be the Defendant C’s account.

Therefore, since D, Defendant C, and Defendant B conspired to receive KRW 100 million by deceiving the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is claiming for the return of KRW 100 million already paid to the Defendants, who are joint tortfeasors.

B. The summary of Defendant B’s assertion is that Defendant B received KRW 100 million from Defendant C according to the direction of Defendant D, but it is merely that Defendant B reported the business plan presented by Defendant B to Defendant B and promoted the work to carry out the work under the direction of D, and there was no charge against the public official or deception in collusion with D, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

C. The summary of Defendant C’s assertion that deposited KRW 100 million with Defendant C’s mother’s head of Tong is by Nonparty E’s request, the Plaintiff’s children, and Defendant C did not either pay for the public official, or deception the Plaintiff in collusion with Defendant D and Defendant B, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 2 (criminal judgment), the Plaintiff’s money of KRW 100 million to Defendant C through Defendant C around September 14, 2009, the mother of Defendant B through Defendant C to the Agricultural Cooperative (G) account.