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

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a tax accountant who actually operates Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”); Defendant B is a tax accountant who belongs to Defendant C Tax Accounting Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”); and is a tax accountant who has been in charge of Nonparty C’s tax affairs.

Article 2 (Scope of Services): The period for conducting preliminary tax investigations and preliminary diagnosis services: The fees under Article 4 (Period of Price Payment) from April 1, 2015 to April 10, 2015 shall deposit KRW 13,000,000 (Additional Tax Separate) in the account designated by the defendant corporation on the commencement date of preliminary tax investigation ( April 1, 2015).

2. Services on behalf of Article 2 (Scope of Services): The period of performing services responding to the results of a tax diagnosis: With respect to the duties of conducting research under Article 3 (Service Fees) from September 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015, fees shall be determined as follows:

30,000,000 won (excluding surtax)

B. The non-party company concluded the first tax service contract on March 10, 2015, and the second tax service contract on August 28, 2015, respectively, with the following content between the Defendant corporation and the Defendant corporation:

C. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant money”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (if there is an additional number, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around June 2016, Defendant B deceptioned the Plaintiff as if it was required in KRW 300 million under the name of the Nonparty Company’s tax investigation termination and the appointment of a tax accountant in charge. On June 22, 2016, Defendant B received the instant money from the Plaintiff and consumed it for personal purposes. The Plaintiff primarily sought damages arising from the tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act by deception against Defendant B, and damages arising from the employer’s liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act against the Defendant Corporation. 2) The Defendants are the Plaintiff E.