1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff invested KRW 350,000,000 to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and sought to receive a refund on December 26, 2013 (hereinafter “instant primary investment contract”), and made an investment of KRW 130,000,000 on November 25, 2013 to receive a refund on December 26, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant secondary investment contract”). B.

D On March 26, 2008, Defendant B and Kimcheon-si entered into a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 438,000,000 for the amount of KRW 50 million and the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million and KRW 50,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000 on the day of the contract, and the payment of KRW 30,000 on January 16, 2009 for the intermediate payment of KRW 150,000,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 30,000 on the day of the contract.

C. In addition, on December 23, 2008, D entered into a sales contract with Defendant C on the same day with Kimcheon-si L, M, 115 square meters, 164,90 square meters prior to M, and its ground trees and its ground trees, with the purchase price of KRW 164,90,000, and Defendant C paid 54,320,000 each as the intermediate payment on the same day on December 24, 2008.

[Ground of Recognition] Defendant B: The non-contentious facts, entries in Gap evidence 2 and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings: The entries in Gap evidence 5-2, 6 and 7

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion D did not obtain business approval, and upon the rescission of the sales contract with the Defendants, the Plaintiff did not exercise the above claim despite the claim to refund the intermediate payment of KRW 80,000 from Defendant B, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50,00,000 from Defendant C.

The Plaintiff has the right to claim the return of the agreed investment amount even after the due date under the instant 1 and 2 investment contract was due.

Therefore, the Plaintiff claims the return of each part of the above intermediate payment on behalf of the Defendants in insolvency.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a) Where the obligee’s right to the obligor to be preserved by subrogation is a monetary claim when the obligee represents the obligor, the preservation thereof;