1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Defendant B’s judgment on the main defense of Defendant B’s main defense is that the Plaintiff was not a party to a contract with Defendant B, and thus, it is deemed that Defendant B’s defense to the effect that the Plaintiff is not a party

In the lawsuit of performance, the standing to sue exists for a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether or not there is the right to demand performance should be proved through the deliberation of the merits. It is clear that the lawsuit of this case constitutes the lawsuit of performance, and the plaintiff has standing to sue by itself, and whether or not there is the plaintiff's right to demand performance against the

Therefore, Defendant B’s main defense cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff introduced Defendant B from Defendant C and entrusted the Defendants with the management of KRW 300 million, and the Defendants agreed to manage the said money for four months from the date of receipt of the said KRW 300 million account with the Plaintiff’s agent D and to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the loss if any loss occurs.

However, as of November 18, 2016, the last day of the above account management period, the Defendants suffered losses from the erroneous operation of the Defendants as of November 18, 2016, and the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 60,657,943 to the Plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement. As such, the Plaintiff is claiming for payment of KRW 33,391,204, and damages for delay thereof, with the express claim against the Defendants.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the written evidence Nos. 1 through 6, D met Defendant B with the introduction of Defendant C, and the amount of KRW 300 million deposited in the Plaintiff’s account (hereinafter “instant account”) was entrusted to Defendant B, and D and Defendant B operated the instant account for a maximum of four months from the date on which Defendant B received the instant account on July 27, 2016.