1. Defendants B, D, and E are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) for KRW 31,100,000, and KRW 9,000,000 to the appointed Party F;

1. Claim against Defendant B, D, and E

(a)be as shown in the attachment of the claim;

B. 1) Judgment by public notice of claim against Defendant B and E (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act), which held that confession of claim against Defendant D (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. Defendant C’s assertion of the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the designated parties are directors of Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) and caused damage to the Plaintiff, etc. by engaging in an act of fund-raising without permission, in collusion with Defendant B, D, etc. (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties (as to the Plaintiff and the designated parties together with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff et al.) with the knowledge that the act of fund-raising was illegal.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 760 of the Civil Act or Article 401 of the Commercial Act, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiff, etc. with Defendant B, D, etc.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 2-1, 3, and 4 of the judgment, the following can be acknowledged: (a) although Defendant C was registered as an internal director of Defendant E, Defendant C merely received 1% or 0.75% per month for the investment money received from Defendant B and D as a nominal director, and did not participate in the act of attracting investment; (b) Defendant C was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Regulation on the Regulation of Temporary Receipt of Funds in Ulsan District Court 2014Kadan662 on August 21, 2014; and (c) the judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2014; and (d) there was no act of receiving money without the same from the Plaintiff, etc. for the crime.

In light of the above circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C conspiredd with Defendant B, and D merely with Gap evidence (including paper numbers) is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C offered to receive money without delay from Plaintiff et al., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Defendant C is in accordance with Article 760 of the Civil Act or Article 401 of the Commercial Act against the Plaintiff, etc.