1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. After the Plaintiff became aware of Defendant B through the introduction by Defendant C, the Plaintiff leased KRW 471,850,000 in total to the Defendants by means of either remitting Defendant D and ASEAN’s account from April 26, 2012 to June 20, 2016, or repaying Defendant B’s fish farming-related obligations on behalf of the Defendants. However, the Plaintiff was only 50,000,000 out of the above loans.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 421,850,00 (=471,850,000 - 50,000) and damages for delay.

B. Although the amount of money transferred or repaid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff as above does not constitute a loan to the Defendants, the total amount of KRW 341,300,000,000, which was paid directly to the Defendants, out of the above money, was entered into with the Plaintiff [the business of selling the sea sea sea, which was developed after the Defendants cultivated the red sea, i.e., e., e., farming ground, human resources, know-how, etc. by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant business”).

(ii) constitutes a partner’s money paid pursuant to an agreement to distribute any profit derived from the transaction.

However, since most of the Defendants committed the crime of occupational embezzlement using it for personal purposes and inflicted damages equivalent to the same amount on the Plaintiff, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the tort, and the damages incurred therefrom.

Meanwhile, as alleged by the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not conclude the same business agreement, but did not mean that “the Plaintiff leased the aquaculture from Defendant B to run the sole business of cultivating and selling the Red Sea Bai on its own account, and employed the Defendants for the purpose of managing the aquaculture and transporting feed, etc.,” the Plaintiff was entitled to the ownership of the Red Sea Bai, which was cultivated in such a manner.