1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 10,000,000 with the Plaintiff as well as 5% per annum from April 22, 2014 to July 31, 2014.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the reply to the financial transaction information of the new bank, the Defendants conspired to mislead the Plaintiff, thereby purchasing KRW 38 million on April 22, 2014 at the market price of KRW 27 million, and the Defendants confirmed guilty of the fraud (including Incheon District Court Decision 2014Da9058).

Although the Defendants asserted that they did not have participated, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone are insufficient to reverse the above findings of fact, and there is no other counter-proof of the Defendants.

Therefore, the defendants are not jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor under Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Code.

It is a question of what kind of damages the plaintiff suffered from the judgment on the claim for damages concerning property damage.

We examine the property damage of KRW 10 million claimed by the Plaintiff.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, the plaintiff can be found to have sold 45 million won to D on August 19, 2015, and there is no counter-proof by the plaintiff.

As seen earlier, damage was incurred by purchasing 38 million won fakes of KRW 27 million.

Even if the loss is to be realized by the sale in the future, it is only an abstract loss that is based on the premise that the loss would only be sold at a price below 27 million won or below 38 million won when it is realized by the sale in the future.

Therefore, in fact, 38 million won or more was sold at the price.

If it becomes possible to sell or sell, it should be considered that the abstract damages are not specific damages, so it is not possible to claim damages.

Moreover, the Plaintiff got profit margins. The price difference is KRW 7 million ( = 4500-3,800). Considering that the Plaintiff’s repair cost of KRW 4 million ( = KRW 7 million for repair - KRW 3 million transferred from Defendant C), the Plaintiff’s repair cost of KRW 4 million incurred by the Plaintiff is considered.