2019 Doz. 547066 Damages, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K;

12. L.

13. M;

14.N

15.O

16. P;

17. Qua

18. R

19. S;

20. Telecommunication

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Dong-ju

1. U;

Law Firm Lats et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-tae

2. V:

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

April 9, 2020

May 14, 2020

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants jointly and severally, to the Plaintiff A, KRW 19,93,450, KRW 5,00 to the Plaintiff B, KRW 21,638,50, KRW 200 to the Plaintiff D, KRW 2,793,00, KRW 8,959,90 to the Plaintiff E, KRW 31,812,60 to the Plaintiff, KRW 31,540 to the Plaintiff G, KRW 18,927,50, KRW 17,127,50 to the Plaintiff H, KRW 6,48,250 to the Plaintiff J, KRW 2,528, KRW 350, KRW 57, KRW 868,00 to the Plaintiff C, KRW 23,60 to the Plaintiff, KRW 236,50 to the Plaintiff, KRW 250 to the Plaintiff, KRW 7,650 to the Plaintiff’s final claim for KRW 23,605, KRW 750,601 to the Plaintiff, KRW 27,6501 to the Plaintiff

1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendants conspired with each of the following to mislead each of the plaintiffs:

① The Defendants, inasmuch as there is no technological and business value of investment in the “cding Codings” (hereinafter referred to as the “cdings”) and there is no value of investment, they deceptiond as being highly likely to invest in the cdings in order to raise the WON’s acquisition fund, which is the domestic cdings Exchange.

(2) In fact, even though there is no intention or ability to list the cryptism of this case by re-burialing the W Exchange suspended in the short term, the said crypted the cryptism in January 2019, thereby deceiving the cryptism of this case as immediately being listed.

③ The market price of the encryption of this case sharply increased within a short period, thereby deceiving investors as if they gain a large profit.

④ As such, “X” and “Y” of a large investment fund in the Republic of Korea had deceivingd that the instant encryption will be listed, it would have been interested in the underwriting of the W Exchange.

⑤ In fact, although the total issuance volume of the encryption of this case reaches approximately 2 billion, the actual circulation volume of the encryption of this case was deceiving as if it was merely 1 billion won.

6. The fact was that the instant coding was sold to other investors in two won per piece, but it was deceiving the Plaintiffs as if they were sold in a particularly low manner only to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs purchased the instant encryption as stated in the “the details of the Plaintiff’s purchase” stated below, which falls under the said deception by the Defendants.

The plaintiffs' purchase details

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

However, as W Exchange did not perform the transaction of encryption of this case at all, the defendant suffered the same loss as stated in the "amount of damage" as stated in the following table, according to Article 760 of the Civil Code, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs the amount stated in the "amount of damage (amount of damage)" column and damages for delay.

The plaintiffs' damages claim amount (amount of damage)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination

In light of the following facts or circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants conspired to deception the Plaintiffs as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the above assertion by the Plaintiffs is without merit.

A. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants on the following facts. On February 28, 2020, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office rendered a decision that the Defendants are not guilty (Evidence of Evidence) on the grounds that it is difficult to deem the Defendants to have deceiving the Plaintiffs.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant U is the representative of the Zc Foundation that issued mixed coaches, and Defendant V, at the request of Defendant U.S., conspireds to attract investors in the mixed coaches. From November to December, 2018, the facts are as follows: (i) if the mixed coaches have no technical and business value to make investments; (ii) if the mixed coaches can be listed in the domestic exchange within a short period of time so that investors can recover their investments by listing them on January 2, 2019 in the domestic exchange without the intent or ability to cause investors to withdraw their investments; and (iii) even if the market price has not been increased within a short period of time and there is no intention or ability to make them raise in the market price, the facts are as follows: (i) there is no possibility that investors would be more likely to gain profits by deceiving them; and (ii) there is no possibility that investors would be more than 00 million won in cash by deceiving them, and (iii) there is no possibility that investors would be more than 1 billion won in the stock exchange.

B. The issuance volume and sales volume of the instant coding was already disclosed in the white paper, and the W Exchange promoted that the instant coding was listed on January 2, 2019, and the instant coding was listed in the AB Exchange around March 22, 2019. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants deceiving the issuance volume of the instant coding and the exchange listing plan.

C. In light of the fact that coding is highly likely to cause loss due to price decline due to its nature, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants reached deception even if there is somewhat exaggeration of expected profit on coding of this case.

D. Among the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, SNS dialogues with Defendant V is mostly after the plaintiffs finished the solicitation of investment funds for the cryptism of this case, and its content appears to be the purport of sharing investment information or opinion on the cryptism of this case, which Defendant V became aware of.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-hoon

Judge Lee Han-tae

Judges White-burine