1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim for exchange change in this court, is as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, which he/she became aware of in Thailand, transferred the request to the effect that “The parent Party B and father C’s business funds (such as materials, etc.)” was 2% per month of defect; ① KRW 5 million around May 15, 2013 to Defendant B; ② KRW 3 million in the Plaintiff’s relative G name on August 14, 2013 to Defendant B; ③ KRW 2 million in the Plaintiff’s relative G name on August 26, 2013; ④ KRW 6 million in the Plaintiff’s relative G name on September 2, 2013 to Defendant B; and ⑤ KRW 3 million in the Plaintiff’s mother’s name on September 26, 2013; and KRW 5 million in the Plaintiff’s mother’s name on September 15, 2014 to H.

B. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred money to the account in the name of E at the interest rate of 2% per month and lent KRW 30 million to the account in the name of E.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of a proposal from Defendant B, to the effect that the Plaintiff would make payment of KRW 26.2 million per month from January 2013 to June 2015, to the 6.80 million won per month for 30 months, after opening an account in which he/she subscribed to (i), 300,000 won per month from January 2013 to June 2015; and (ii) transferred KRW 6.80,00 won per month from January 28, 2013 to June 26, 2015; and (iii) agreed to additionally lend KRW 3.8 million per day between E and the Plaintiff on July 20, 2015; and (iv) the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 26.2 million per month to the Plaintiff at the interest rate of February 16, 200 (the Plaintiff’s loan interest rate of February 16, 2016).

On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff lent 5 million won to E’s account at the rate of 2% per month for the request that Defendant B and E lend a family-friendly congratulatory fee.

E. Defendant B and E were indicted on the criminal facts that “Notwithstanding the absence of the intent or ability to make repayment in collusion with Defendant B and E, deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff on a total of KRW 9.52 million from the Plaintiff as the deposit amount set forth in the said paragraph (c), 3.8 million additional loans set forth in the said paragraph (c), 3.8 million additional loans set forth in the said paragraph (c), and 5 million won set forth in the said paragraph”, and that “the Plaintiff acquired 38.8 million won from the Plaintiff on a loan basis.”