1. Defendant B and Defendant C are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 34,800,000 and the same on January 16, 2006.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed to invest KRW 30,00,000 in G development projects located in the Nam-gun, Namcheon-gun, which are promoted by the Defendant Company C, and the Defendant Company C issued 10 shares of the redemption amount of KRW 1,00,000 on August 19, 2014, and the redemption date of KRW 30,300,000 on August 30, 2005, and the redemption amount of KRW 3,300,000 on the same day, and the Plaintiff transferred the amount of investment to the account in the name of the said Defendant Company.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is against the Plaintiff.

On June 30, 2005, G Development Repayment Certificate was issued to the effect that 33,000,000 won will be repaid on the investment funds described in the paragraph.

C. On Aug. 23, 2005, Defendant B sent to the Plaintiff a notice for delay of investment reimbursement of KRW 34,800,000,000 by December 30, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to Defendant C and Defendant B, Defendant C and Defendant B are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 34,800,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the above claim for the return of the investment deposit was extinguished by the extinctive prescription, the facts that the due date of the above claim for the return of the investment deposit was December 30, 2005 (it refers to August 30, 2005, even if based on the date of redemption in the first redemption certificate issued by the Defendant C Co., Ltd.) are stated above. As such, it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 23, 2015, which was before the expiration of 10 years thereafter, and therefore, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

B. The plaintiff to determine the claim against the defendant D and E is the representative director of the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul as the inside director of the defendant corporation Eul, and the defendant Eul as the defendant corporation's in-house director of the defendant corporation Eul, and the defendant corporation has the form of a legal entity, but its substance is the defendant D and the