1. Defendant B’s KRW 1,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 25, 2018 to May 15, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff married with E and maintained her husband F under the supervision of E. 2) The Defendant C is a person who works in G in Yananan City, G, and Defendant B is a person who is infinite with Defendant C and works together with Defendant C, and Defendant D is a father of Defendant C.

B. 1) The Defendant C stated that “F received a new bond, and thus, the Plaintiff is required to perform the contract.” The Plaintiff consented to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the contract. The Defendant C issued the contract for the performance of the contract. Around November 2016, the Defendant C issued the contract for the performance of the contract, and the Plaintiff agreed that the contract for the performance of the contract is required more than three times even after the issuance of the contract for the performance of the contract, and the Plaintiff issued the contract for the performance of the contract under the presence of Defendant C.

C. On October 15, 2016, the remittance date of expenses (won) remitted to the account in the name of Defendant D, each of which was designated by Defendant C, on November 1, 2016, 15,90,000 on October 1, 2016, 15,000,000,000 on November 1, 2016, 200,000 on November 10, 2016, 200 on November 10, 2016, 6,000,000,000,000 aggregate 14,90,000,000 won on November 28, 2016.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for damages arising from joint tort by the Defendants

A. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C and B had no effect on the part of the Plaintiff upon the Defendant C’s solicitation, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff to the effect that, even if the Plaintiff had been aware of the absence of such effect, the Plaintiff would be able to obtain a new contract with F, the Plaintiff itself, the husband and her children, and the disposal of the two houses, which had been laid down as a thing, would be friendly.”

Defendant C and B allowed Defendant C and B to use their own accounts with the knowledge of the fact that the said deception was carried out by the Plaintiff, thereby facilitating Defendant C and B’s deception.

The plaintiff is belonging to the above joint deception by the defendants, and as requested by defendant C, 14,900.