1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 8, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a share acquisition agreement with the Defendant Company to purchase 10,000 won of common shares issued by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company on November 17, 2017.

B. At the time of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the said Defendant on charges of fraud by asserting that the Defendant C belonged to the financial situation of the Defendant Company at the time of entering into the instant contract, and that the said Defendant was suspected of fraud. However, the District Prosecutors’ Office of the Government that investigated the instant case, on February 28, 2019, issued a disposition that the Defendant

D E

C. The Plaintiff appealed against this, but the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office dismissed the appeal on May 7, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff deceiving the Plaintiff as to the non-performing status of the Defendant Company’s financial standing (if the balance of the passbook is KRW 0 won and the amount of salaries or leases is overdue), ② the actual fault of the Defendant Company’s business, ③ the status of the transfer of the shares of this case was not underway at the time of the contract, ④ the status of the transfer of the shares of this case, ④ the status of the transfer of the shares of this case, and ④ the status of the transfer of the shares of this case where there was no possibility for the application for the loan of the company funds of KRW 00 million to be permitted, and thereby, concluded the contract of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff was erroneous, the Plaintiff made a cancellation

However, the above contents concerning the defendant company, which the plaintiff was at issue in the lawsuit of this case, are identical to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant company was developed in the above criminal case. The prosecutor's office made a disposition against the defendant C's suspicion of fraud, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against it by the prosecutor's office.