The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted that they paid investment to D through the defendant in order to invest in assets similar to the funds in the assets management similar to the funds at the defendant's recommendation. D did not operate the above money as a financial product such as the assets management, and used it as the expense of the E Union operated by the Dong and Dong. The defendant deceivings the plaintiffs.

In addition, the defendant arbitrarily distributed the money received from D as interest, etc. to the plaintiffs, and he embezzled his share unilaterally.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages due to tort.

Judgment

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that D is the fact that the defendant deceivings the plaintiffs and acquired the investment money through the defendant to the purport that he/she would use it as the expense of the E. Union operated by Dong Jae, and that he/she would operate financial products such as asset management.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant introduced it to the plaintiffs with the knowledge of the aforementioned deception, and therefore, it cannot be said that the deception of D is the act of deception of the defendant.

Unlike the plaintiffs who had not been repaid the principal with the money received from D, there is no dispute between the parties that the principal and interest was repaid in excess of the principal.

D explained that the Defendant would first repay the Plaintiffs’ investment money with the money received from the Defendant.

(A) No. 8-1), however, it is difficult to readily recognize the credibility of the statement, which is a content delivered in the form of a letter to the injured party's representative during the criminal trial against the principal.

In addition, even if based on the above statement of D, the defendant used the money to pay the principal and interest of its investment because it did not specify the purpose of the payment as the repayment for the plaintiffs.