1. The judgment of the court of first instance, including the claim that the plaintiff changed in this court, is modified as follows.

Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants-related Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company established on September 11, 2001 for the purpose of developing hot spring tourism around September 11, 2001.

Defendant D is the chief executive officer of the Defendant Company’s overall headquarters; Defendant E is the head of the Defendant Company’s overall headquarters; from February 20, 2002 to September 11, 2004; ② from July 31, 2007 to July 30, 2010; ③ from October 12, 2010 to October 11, 2013; ④ from December 20, 2014 to December 20, Defendant D is the representative director, director, or internal director; and Defendant C is the children of Defendant D and the representative director from October 31, 207 to October 30, 201 to December 31, 2013; and Defendant C is the representative director from October 12, 2010 to March 31, 2013; and

B. The Plaintiff’s investment or loan 1) 1590 million won is the Plaintiff’s hot spring development project of the Gri-si Gri-si (hereinafter “instant hot spring development project”).

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s investment and loan details, the sum of KRW 159 million to Defendant D (hereinafter “instant investment amount, etc.”) is as indicated in the attached Form No. 150,000,000.

(2) On July 28, 201, the Plaintiff was granted a sales contract, loan certificate, etc. in the name of Defendant Company, Defendant D, and E, and the Plaintiff leased KRW 20 million to Defendant E (hereinafter “instant loan 1”) as of September 28, 201.

3) On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to Defendant Company and D (hereinafter “instant loan 2”) KRW 30 million.

B The due date was set on April 2, 2014 and lent.

C. The plaintiff in the relevant criminal trial B.

The Defendant D, E, and C filed a complaint with respect to the amount invested or loaned to Defendant D, as stated in the foregoing paragraph, on the charge of fraud. However, Defendant C and E were not prosecuted on the grounds that there was no evidence of public offering except that it is the past or current representative director of the Defendant Company, and that it is the nominal owner of the transaction account.

On the other hand, Defendant D was prosecuted on charges of fraud with respect to the instant investment funds, etc. on April 2017.