Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in relation to the defendant B, which orders payment.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The reasoning for this part of the court’s claim for damages following the termination of the instant joint project agreement is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except that the part on “only the above evidence,” including the above evidence, presented by the Plaintiff, is stated as “only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff,” and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff agreed to receive a subsequent refund from the Defendants, and the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 25,91,476 in advance, registration tax, and monthly rent, etc. to the ASEAN A6 vehicles that the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement on May 17, 2016, and paid a fine of KRW 1,502,000 for criminal cases payable by Defendant B on May 17, 2016. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 27,493,476 (= KRW 25,91,476), and delay damages therefrom. (ii) The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 27,493,476 in advance, and KRW 25,502,00 in advance, and KRW 479,595,799,979,979, etc.

However, in addition to the overall purport of arguments, the following circumstances, namely, ① there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff also has no specific assertion as to the time of return, ② according to the notice of the reason for non-prosecution against Defendant B (Evidence No. 1) and the Defendants stated that they failed to regard the vehicle itself, and the said AD vehicle was the Plaintiff.