1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 90,000,000 for Plaintiff A and KRW 30,000,000 among them, from November 6, 2012 to 60.

1. Facts alleged by the plaintiffs

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is as shown in the attached Form.

B. The facts alleged by the Plaintiffs are deemed to have been led by the Defendants pursuant to Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, Defendant Incorporated Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), delayed the repayment of the investment deposit obligation, and each of the investment agreements between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Co., Ltd was lawfully rescinded upon the intent of the Plaintiffs’ rescission.

Defendant Company is obligated to return to the Plaintiffs the investment money that it received from the Plaintiffs.

B. According to the above facts, Defendant C appears to have guaranteed the Defendant C’s obligation to return investment deposits.

Unless there are special circumstances, the surety is also liable to guarantee the duty to restore the obligation to be borne by the obligor due to nonperformance (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109586, May 24, 2012). Therefore, the Defendant C is jointly obligated to return the investment amount to the Plaintiffs jointly with the Defendant Company.

C. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to jointly restore to their original state; with respect to KRW 90,00,000 and KRW 30,000,000 among them, for KRW 60,000 from November 6, 2012; KRW 36,000,000 from November 30, 2012; KRW 36,000 to Plaintiff B; and KRW 18,000,00 among them, for KRW 18,000 from August 14, 2012 to KRW 18,00,00 from February 15, 2013 to April 28, 2015; and KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the next day to the date of full payment; and KRW 20,000 or delay damages from each legal interest calculated at the annual rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are justified.