1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and the interest thereon from September 7, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of selling computers and peripheral devices, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company that runs the business of developing and distributing games, and Defendant C is the actual manager of the Defendant Company as an internal director of the Defendant Company.

B. Around March 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply of KRW 60,000,000, at a price lower than the market price, with the Defendant Company and China’s portable charging unit for “D” (hereinafter “D”), and paid KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant Company as advance payment on March 10, 2016.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not receive goods from the Defendant Company under the above goods supply contract until now, and did not receive advance payment.

Meanwhile, Defendant C was indicted on the charge that “if advance payment is made through E in the absence of the ability to supply the product by means of losses caused by reverse dust and the embezzlement of company funds, Defendant C would supply D’s assistant distribution services by false statement to the Plaintiff, and obtained the amount equivalent to D’s amount by deceit because it did not supply the product after receiving the product from Defendant C’s foreign exchange bank account,” and was sentenced on February 7, 2017. The Seoul High Court judgment became final and conclusive on September 14, 2017 by the judgment of dismissal of appeal.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, since it has caused the damage equivalent to the amount acquired by deception by the said deceptive act, and Defendant C is the employer of Defendant C, who is the employer of Defendant C, to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by

Therefore, the defendants jointly do not constitute 60,000,000 won and after they were illegal acts against the plaintiff.