1. The Defendants respectively

A. Plaintiff A’s 235,830,000 won and the year from July 24, 2014 to January 8, 2016.

1. The Defendants were indicted by violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (Seoul High Court 2015No1793) in the appellate trial of the above case (Seoul High Court 2015No1793), and the Seoul High Court convicted Defendant D of all the charges on May 29, 2015, sentenced Defendant D to three years of imprisonment and five years of imprisonment. The above judgment was finalized on March 24, 2016 by the Supreme Court's dismissal of appeal (2015Do20414).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if a civil trial which causes the claim is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment which has already become final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible documentary evidence.

Therefore, in light of other evidence submitted in a civil trial, the facts opposed to this cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a judgment of facts in the criminal trial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997, etc.). According to the facts of recognition, the Defendants, as the joint tortfeasor of fraud by intention, are obligated to pay the Plaintiffs each amount of damages and damages for delay equivalent to the sum of the damages by the Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet.

3. Defendant D’s assertion

A. The defendant D, who offsets negligence, asserts that he/she should offset the negligence by taking into account the above circumstances, as he/she was absent from the defendant E's attempt and only performed mechanical duties according to his/her instructions, and did not face with the plaintiffs once.

The assertion that a person who intentionally committed an illegal act by taking advantage of the victim's care is in breach of the good faith principle that the victim assumes his/her responsibility for the reason of the victim's negligence cannot be permitted.

(Supreme Court Decision 95Da30352 delivered on November 14, 1995, etc.) Also, Defendant D’s above assertion.