1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Basic facts are corporations that conduct real estate development, lease, etc. business, and the defendant, around March 2017, is delegated by the plaintiffs to conduct district unit planning management business, real estate sale consultation business, and investment attraction business by proxy in relation to the business that newly constructs and sells an apartment of 1,200 households on a site of 31,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant business”).

Plaintiff

B On October 1, 2018, a stock company issued to the Defendant a certificate of content to the effect that it will cancel the delegation of agency because it did not have any outcome related to the instant business, and that it would cancel the delegation of agency, and on October 10, 2018, the Defendant promoted the instant business and paid personal money by establishing a regional housing association without the consent of Plaintiff B, and issued a certificate of content to the effect that it would cancel the delegation of agency of the instant business with the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(1) The Defendant’s assertion and judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s assertion constituted tort, such as embezzlement and breach of trust equivalent to KRW 427,877,049 in total while acting as an agent for the instant business. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff Company A for damages, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company A with KRW 213,938,525, and damages for delay.

Judgment

However, the contents of the Defendant’s illegal act (Embezzlement, breach of trust, etc.) and the amount of damages incurred therefrom cannot be specified individually and individually, and the Plaintiffs did not comply with this court’s order to submit a preparatory document specifying the Defendant’s illegal act and amount of damages and indicating evidence. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant suffered damages to the Plaintiffs due to the illegal act of embezzlement and breach of trust.