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

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

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. In August 2006, Defendant C, a summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, committed deception that “The fact that Defendant C, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was at the construction site of the dormitory of the Dschool operated by the Defendant Social Welfare Foundation B (hereinafter the Defendant Juristic Person), did not undergo the completion inspection on the wind that was almost completed due to typhoons, while there was no intent or ability to pay the construction cost.” The Defendant C, even though there was no intention or ability to pay the construction cost, did not undergo the completion inspection on the wind that was incurred due to typhoons. The Plaintiff would pay the construction cost as the subsidy paid

Accordingly, from August 2006, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the amount of the construction cost not paid KRW 33,028,500, since around 20 days after the beginning of August 2006.

Defendant C’s act constitutes a tort by fraud against the Plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant C caused damage by deceiving the plaintiff for the construction of the dormitory of the defendant corporation is the representative of the corporation under Article 35 (1) of the Civil Code who causes damage to the other person in connection with his duties.

Therefore, the Defendants shall jointly and severally pay the remainder of KRW 26,028,50,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 7 million already paid by the Defendants, from among the Plaintiff’s damages amounting to KRW 33,028,500.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant C committed a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff solely with the written evidence No. 1 (Judgment). [The appellate court of the fraudulent case against Defendant C (the original District Court 2013No2571) was acquitted on June 25, 2014)], and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on defendant C's fraud, is without merit.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1 is that the defendant corporation is the plaintiff around August 2006.