1. The plaintiff, the defendant corporation B and C jointly 86,263,190 won, and the defendant Eul are the defendant corporation B and C.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) is a company whose business purpose is visual and precious metal products wholesale and retail business.

On October 30, 2015, Defendant C established Defendant B and took office as the representative director in order to raise investment funds in gold trading business from many and unspecified persons.

B. Defendant C explained to the people interested in the investment in the gold trading business, including Defendant D, that “The gold trading business has been allocated in Hong Kong. The gold has been imported or recruited, and the gold has been sold by refining and processing it in gold with a special route, such as auction, and if the prices are sold at the market, the profits remains to a approximately 30-40% amount. Accordingly, when investing in the gold trading business, the principal amount shall be returned to 20% each month from the following month, and the return on investment shall be paid 4% of the principal amount of the investment every month, and if the people make an investment by soliciting the investment to the surrounding people, the amount shall be paid 4-6% of the investment amount every month as a recommendation allowance, and if a large number of branches are paid by attracting investment, the branch office allowance shall be paid separately and the company shall also purchase gold wholesalers handled by the company.”

C. However, in fact, Defendant C attempted to engage in a certain gold trading business by excessively raising only investment funds in a state that there is no experience or sufficient capital in doing a gold trading-related business. The gold trading business also was not a business that guarantees high profits because it simply purchases gold from wholesalers and sells them to retailers, which would cause profits or losses depending on the market price, such as ordinary gold trading.

Therefore, Defendant C was bound to use the so-called return method in which principal, allowances, etc. are paid to the existing investors with the investment funds received from subordinated investors.