1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 68,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from July 7, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) by deceiving the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (b) Defendant B, “I would obtain a tourist bus office”, and “I would receive an amount of fine through an auction of real estate if I would receive real estate at an auction; and (c) would receive an amount of fine from the Plaintiff on June 9, 2017; (d) KRW 10,000,000 on August 2, 2017; (e) KRW 13,000,000 on September 13, 2017; and (e) KRW 12,00,000,000 on September 14, 2017; and (e) obtained money from the Plaintiff on September 12, 2017, KRW 3,000,000 on November 06, 200, total of KRW 68,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s trust account; and (e) aiding and abetting the Defendant C not only to use the Plaintiff’s trust account.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the above 68,000,000 won and damages for delay.

2. Defendant B, as alleged by the Plaintiff, made a judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B by deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby making a confession of the fact that the Plaintiff acquired 68,00,000 won as alleged by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 7, 2019 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, as the damages amounting to the above KRW 68,00,000,00

3. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C filed a claim for damages by aiding and abetting and aiding the Defendant C’s deceptive act, and also sharing profits from the deceptive act. However, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 alone are insufficient to recognize the facts of aiding and abetting and sharing profits, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

[No. 1] According to the statement of the certificate of deposit transaction (Evidence No. 1) it is difficult to view that Defendant C lent the financial account to Defendant B, but it alone is insufficient to view that Defendant C instigated and aided the defraudation of Defendant B. Moreover, the indictment against Defendant B (Evidence No. 3).