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

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a corporation established for the purpose of the manufacture, wholesale and retail business, export and import business, etc. of raw water, and was merged with Nonparty F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on November 26, 2014. Defendant B was a person who was the head of the Busan Regional Headquarters of the Nonparty Co., Ltd., and Defendant D is the former representative director and the inside director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to each non-party company, and the appointed person paid KRW 40 million on June 12, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 5-1, and 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion of liability for damages caused by tort (1) although Defendant B and D received investment funds, they did not have the intent or ability to pay high-amount interest or principal to the Plaintiff and the designated parties, the Plaintiff and the designated parties, who were erroneous, by deceiving the Plaintiff and the designated parties to pay interest at 8-10% per month on the investment principal, thereby allowing them to pay money to the non-party company. The Defendant Company is liable for damages in accordance with Articles 398(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the Defendants are liable for damages caused by tort.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million, KRW 40 million, and KRW 40 million, as well as damages for delay.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant B and D, despite the absence of the intent or ability of Defendant B and D to repay, deceptions by deceiving the Plaintiff and the designated person in spite of the lack of intent or ability to repay, based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected without examining the scope of damages.

G, which is the spouse of the Plaintiff’s partner and the selector, is 'B' and D on 2013.