1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2016 and July 2016, the Defendant stated that “D (hereinafter “D”)’s representative director E may look at F, G, HI, and J, etc. (hereinafter “instant public offering”)’s agency allocation volume at 105% of the public offering price. As such, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would guarantee the principal of the investment and pay 50% of the profits.”

B. The Defendant, who invested in the relevant public offering share, recommended the Plaintiff to make the instant public offering share investment, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 223,787,50 in total to D from June 9, 2016 to July 22, 2016 as F, I, and J public offering share investments.

C. However, despite the receipt of investment funds under the name of a public offering, E has to invest only only a part of the investment funds in the public offering share, and most of them have to be used in the repayment of debts to existing investors. Since it is not a managing entity or beneficiary of the fund, there was no intent or ability to pay principal and earnings to the victims such as the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, in collusion with K, E acquired approximately KRW 2.26,855 million in total from 9 victims as a public offering investment fund, including KRW 223,787,500,000 of the Plaintiff’s investment fund, and thereby, it became final and conclusive upon conviction of three years of imprisonment.

(No. 12), entry of evidence No. 12, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, without any dispute (based on recognition)

2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant actively participated in the fraudulent conduct of E, such as arranging the plaintiff and E to make an investment in the instant public offering and receiving brokerage expenses, etc., and he/she shall obtain a total of 223,787,500 won from the plaintiff as the investment funds for public offering, or obtain a total of 223,787,50 won from many victims, including the plaintiff, including the plaintiff, in mediating the public offering investment, and without fulfilling his/her duty of care to verify whether the public offering investment is actually being made, and whether the D is a substantial operator and K is involved in the above public offering investment.