1. The plaintiffs' claims against Defendant C are dismissed.

2. Defendant D shall pay 31,000,000 won to each of the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are merchants operating commercial buildings in Jung-gu, Seoul.

B. On February 2013, the Plaintiffs, upon the recommendation of Defendant D, jointly subscribed to the number fraternity operated by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant system”) under the name of “F (name operated by Plaintiff A”)” and paid to Defendant C the sum of KRW 62 million (per 200,000 per day between March 16, 2013 and September 16, 2013) via Defendant D 155 times during the period from March 16, 2013 to September 16, 2013.

C. The instant fraternity was dispatched by Defendant D’s locking, and the primary Defendant C, the owner of the instant fraternity, is obligated to return the fraternity paid by the Plaintiffs, and otherwise, is obligated to return it to the preliminary Defendant D, the owner of the instant fraternity.

2. First of all, in light of the fact that Defendant C joined the fraternity by the recommendation of Defendant D and paid the fraternity through Defendant D, and the payment and receipt of the fraternity that the Plaintiffs joined in addition to the fraternity of this case were also Defendant D through Defendant D, and the Plaintiffs were unable to receive the fraternity and they filed a criminal complaint against Defendant C, not Defendant C, upon which they filed a criminal complaint, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be deemed to have directly concluded the subscription contract with the Plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this (only on the account of the fact that the document No. 1 contains the entry of “F” in the accounting book of the evidence No. 1, it cannot be deemed that the contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant C was concluded). The Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant C is without merit.

Next, according to the purport of the records and arguments as to the claims against Defendant D, Defendant D is an intermediate subject of the instant accounts, and the amount paid by the Plaintiffs is KRW 31 million each, and the instant accounts are recognized as having been sold on or around September 2013. Thus, Defendant D is to the Plaintiffs.