1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff delivered each of the checks listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each of the checks of this case") to the defendants by deception by defendant C, and thus the delivery of each of the checks of this case constitutes an expression of intent by fraud, and thus is revoked.

Therefore, the Defendants should jointly restore to their original state and deliver each of the instant checks to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants is not the Defendants, but the Plaintiff issued each of the instant checks to the SUGGG TNG THHPU U.S.A. AINC, which is a U.S. corporation, and the Defendants do not bear the duty of restitution. If the Defendants are liable to the duty of restitution, each of the instant checks was seized at the prosecutor’s office, and is not possessed by the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants cannot deliver

2. First of all, we examine whether the Defendants possessed each of the instant checks.

Each of the checks of this case is kept by F of the Sungsung World, which was confiscated by waiver of ownership to the investigation agency and voluntary submission, and the defendant C was convicted of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), etc. of Suwon District Court on January 18, 2018. The facts constituting the crime of this case include the part of deceiving the plaintiff and receiving each of the checks of this case for the purpose of investment [2017 Gohap24,277 (Merger), 496 (Merger)]. The fact that each of the checks of this case was not sentenced to confiscation of each of the checks of this case in the above judgment, and the fact that the appellate court continues to exist due to the filing of an appeal against the above judgment does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by the statement of Gap evidence 7 1 through 8, and evidence 8.

The seizure is considered to have been cancelled if it is confirmed in the criminal trial that the seized article has waived ownership at the stage of investigation without the declaration of confiscation.