1. Defendant among the judgment of the first instance, ordered the Plaintiffs to pay in excess of the following amounts:

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part concerning the plaintiffs and the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff B with 68,50,000 won and 220,500,000 won to the plaintiff E for the following reasons. ① The defendant, in collusion with the co-defendants of the first instance court, deceiving the plaintiffs without any intention and ability to settle or return them even if they receive the investment money from the plaintiffs, thereby deceiving them from the plaintiff B under the pretext of the investment money, and acquired 68,50,000 won from the plaintiff E under the pretext of the investment money. ② The defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court jointly are co-defendants under Article 760 of the Civil Act, and are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the investment money they paid to the plaintiffs.2) The defendant's assertion is unjust for the following reasons.

① The Defendant is merely serving as the head of Q Q 2 branch from March 2005 to August 2006 to March 2007, and the Defendant did not participate in the business of the new company branch that the Plaintiffs invested.

As such, the defendant's work as the president of Samsung Branch does not have any causal relationship with the plaintiffs' damages, and the defendant is not obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for damages.

② Even if the Defendant had the obligation to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages, the Plaintiffs already known that the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment due to the charge of fraud on July 1, 2011, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ damage claim against the Defendant had already ceased to exist due to the completion of prescription.

③ In addition, in calculating the amount of damages, negligence should be offset in consideration of the fact that the mother of Plaintiff B is the team leader of Q new branch office.