1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed, respectively.

3.In the trial, the trial shall be held.

1. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants

A. On March 18, 2013, Defendant B, despite the Plaintiff’s payment of Korean won currency equivalent to KRW 65.4 million from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “originality”), the Plaintiff had no intent or ability to pay the said Korean won currency to the Korean Republic of Korea Pest (hereinafter “Korean Pest”) equivalent to the same amount of the said Korean currency to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B, at the request of Defendant B, had the Plaintiff informed the Plaintiff as if he was in charge of money exchange business in the D Company located in the Republic of the Philippines, and caused the Plaintiff to immediately exchange. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 65.4 million to the account in the name of Defendant C on the same day.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly deceiving the Plaintiff and acquired the above won won from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 65.4 million and damages for delay due to the joint tort.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court below, from March 18, 2013 to the national bank account under the name of the defendant C, the plaintiff transferred KRW 35.4 million to the national bank account under the name of the defendant C from March 18, 2013 to the national bank account under the name of the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff's mother, to the national bank account under the name of the defendant C. However, the above evidence and the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 of the evidence and the testimony of the witness G of the trial party are insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendants jointly deceiving the plaintiff, thereby deceiving the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant B

A. The fact that the Plaintiff, on March 18, 2013, remitted the amount of KRW 35.4 million from the account in the name of Defendant C to the account in the name of Defendant C, and the Plaintiff’s mother to the account in the name of Defendant C, from March 18, 2013, to the account in the name of Defendant C. As seen earlier, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and witness G at the trial.