1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5, 9, and Eul evidence 1 and 2:

On June 2015, the defendant was punished by a lot of money as a share investment to the parent-friendly job offering plaintiff, and the decision was made by the non-party C, a share investment expert, that made investment in the shares designated by C in accordance with the non-party C's share investment theory, and that the investment in the shares can be punished by money.

B. Accordingly, on July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a share investment of KRW 70 million (hereinafter “instant KRW 70 million”) under the pretext of a share investment, and, on July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff left the Defendant with a share investment of KRW 10% of the investment profits, and then left the Defendant at the intervals of half of the profits thereafter.

6. The base assessment amount was 317,492,00, known the ID and password of the Plaintiff’s D account (hereinafter “instant account”) under the Plaintiff’s name and provided an authorized certificate necessary for the transaction.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract for discretionary sale and purchase,” which is a general contract for the management of the instant account.

1) From July 14, 2015 to August 14, 2015, the Defendant deposited the instant KRW 70 million received from the Plaintiff in his/her E-Commerce account and traded shares, and thereafter C operated several months, but incurred total loss. 2) The Defendant traded shares, including credit transactions, to the instant account from August 13, 2015 to September 8, 2016. The balance of the instant account is KRW 44,483,00 as of April 2016, and KRW 9,94,00 as of October 1, 2016.

Unlike the Defendant’s horse that from the end of April 2016, the Plaintiff issued the instant KRW 70 million to the Defendant, but did not receive a refund and can recover even the principal of the instant account, the Plaintiff’s embezzlement and the nominal shares due to the Defendant’s refusal to return the said KRW 70 million to the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors’ Office around November of the same year.