1. The defendant is the People's Republic of China against plaintiffs E in the currency of 8,000 People's Republic of China and the rest of the plaintiffs.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Defendant currently operates a mutually cosmetic distributor in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, and Nonparty M served as an employee of the Defendant from the end of January 2015 to May 2015.

B. In around 2015, the Defendant recruited business operators who will act on behalf of selling cosmetics in each region of China.

However, in the process, M means that "in order to become a Chinese commercial agent, it shall pay a security deposit" to the plaintiffs who signed a proxy contract with the defendant, and received the money from the plaintiffs as the down payment stated in the following table.

Plaintiff

The transfer date amount (the People's Abolition) A 20,000 (the People's Abolition) on March 10, 2015 B B, 20,3.3. 13. 20,000 F, C, April 8, 2015 D, March 17, 2015, Mar. 17, 2015; 10,000 F, March 11, 2015, G, 11,200 (H, 11,200, 2000 F, and 15, 2000 (H, 20, 15, 2000) C, respectively;

C. However, the defendant does not demand the deposit to the commercial agent when concluding the agency contract.

M and M are from the plaintiffs.

The sum total of 190,000 bills received as described in the table in the paragraph was not delivered to the defendant.

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion ① is that the defendant is responsible for general tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act (the fact that the defendant has obtained money by deceiving the plaintiffs directly) and the user's responsibility under Article 756 of the Civil Act (the Ma, who is an employee of the defendant, embezzled money by deceiving the plaintiffs). or that the defendant's employee M, who is an employee of the defendant, has embezzled money, and ② is seeking restitution due to cancellation of contract (refusal due to cancellation of agency contract).

3. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The Defendant does not dispute the fact that the Defendant, who is his employee, has taken charge of the damages, deceiving the Plaintiffs, thereby deceiving the down payment.

Therefore, the defendant, the user of M, suffered by the plaintiffs due to M's illegal acts.