1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On the Internet around March 2017, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Company and explained about the cargo transport business, etc. from Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant Company, on the Internet.

B. On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase and operate a rolling stock through the Defendant Company, and prepared a truck consignment management transfer contract with the Defendant Company, which sets the purchase price of KRW 104,00,000, and entered into an I truck management contract with H on March 24, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid KRW 104,000,000 to Defendant B or Defendant Company on March 16, 2017, under the name of automobile price, business number cost, etc., and KRW 28,000,000 on March 31, 2017, and paid KRW 75,000,000 borrowed from F Co., Ltd. on March 21, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 4 through 7 evidence, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant Company, is the Plaintiff’s “job that can obtain KRW 8 million per month sales and KRW 50-6 million per day on a fixed line with a post office” (hereinafter “instant job”).

(3) In addition to the Plaintiff’s sales contract, the Plaintiff’s sales contract, entrusted management contract, and cargo transport contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company, as well as the Defendant Company’s website, advertised the same contents as the above guarantee.

(2) The Plaintiff concluded the instant contract on the ground of the aforementioned deceptive act by the Defendants, on the ground that the Defendants did not have any capacity to provide the same jobs as the instant jobs, and thus did not provide the instant jobs.