1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant D’s KRW 3 billion and its related amount per annum from May 22, 2013 to August 27, 2015, respectively.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. The Defendant D, in collusion with the Defendant B, C, E, F, and G, by November 29, 2007 through September 24, 2009, deceiving the Plaintiff under the pretext of the investment, loan, and deposit for the king charcoal project, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff in total KRW 3.3 million from the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered from the above 300 million won and suffered from mental suffering.

Therefore, Defendant D is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 30 million and consolation money of KRW 50 million in total and KRW 353 million and delay damages therefrom.

(b) Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act:

C. Some dismissed parts of the Plaintiff claimed payment of consolation money for mental damage caused by deception, in addition to compensation for property damage, against Defendant D. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no special circumstance that the Plaintiff suffered unexpected distress not recovered from compensation for property damage.

The plaintiff's claim for consolation money against the defendant D is without merit.

2. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants

A. In collusion with Defendant B, C, E, F, and G, the cause of the claim, from November 29, 2007 to September 24, 2009, Defendant B, C, E, F, and G, by deceiving the Plaintiff under the pretext of the investment money, loan money, and deposit money, and by deceiving the Plaintiff in total KRW 3.3 million from the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered from the above 300 million won and suffered from mental suffering.

Therefore, the above Defendants jointly with Defendant D are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 3 billion and consolation money of KRW 53 billion in total and KRW 53 billion, and delay damages therefrom.

(b) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments.

1. Defendant B was solicited by H, Defendant D, etc. to participate in the king charcoal projects that Defendant D developed, and on September 207.