1. All claims against Defendant B and D among the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C.

I. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant B and D ex officio.

For the case pending before a court, neither party shall institute any lawsuit again.

(1) Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In a case where a lawsuit with the same subject matter of lawsuit has been filed differently from the parties, the subsequent suit is unlawful as a lawsuit filed against the prohibition of duplicate filing unless the pending lawsuit is extinguished due to the rejection of withdrawal, etc. by the time the previous suit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23066, Nov. 14, 2017). In such cases, the criteria for identifying a previous suit and a subsequent suit shall follow the time when the lawsuit is pending, i.e., the time when the complaint was served on the defendant.

(2) On November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against Defendant B and D (hereinafter “prior suit”) with Busan District Court Decision 2017Gahap50870, Nov. 1, 2017. The claimed amount of the prior suit is substantially the same as the claimed amount of KRW 554,80,000,00. The claim amount of the prior suit is the same as the claim amount of the instant lawsuit. The cause of the prior suit is also a tort identical to the instant lawsuit, namely, even if Defendant B received the investment amount from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff obtained profits from the corporate merger and did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and interest thereof, or aided and abetted the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff as the investment amount under the name of the Plaintiff Company E (hereinafter “E representative director”), and each of the aforementioned Defendants B and D’s complaint reaches 181,71,71,717.

Therefore, the part of the claim against the defendant B and D among the lawsuit of this case is the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit.