1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff (Appointeds) KRW 10,000,000, KRW 12,000,000 to the Appointeds P.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and there is no counter-proof.

The Defendants, as a business organization for the sale of land purchased at a low price, have a class system comprised of “dist, president, president, former secretary, regular director, director, chief of office, deputy head, and vice head,” and had an external real estate development company run a normal real estate development company on August 20, 2010 (business closure on May 25, 2012), S Co., Ltd. on August 13, 2012, S Co., Ltd. on August 16, 2012, T & September 20, 2012, and U Co., Ltd. on September 20, 2012. The Defendants continued to play the role of adviser, president, director, chief of general affairs, auditor, president of Sungnam branch, president of general manager, president of general manager, and director of each branch office.

B. In the process, the Defendants continued to commit fraud, even though the Defendants’ operational development companies did not have an intent to pay investment profits even when they received investment funds as a whole, by receiving money as development contributions from the victims who are employees, or by making false statements on the land purchased at a low price, and thereby receiving money from the victims.

C. In addition, since the investigation of the intelligence team of the Gyeonggi Mine Police Station around January 2013 on the suspicion of land fraud, around the beginning of the investigation into the company around January 2013, 2013, the new land purchase fund, the preparation of a refund following the cancellation of a sales contract, the repayment of the existing preliminary principal and interest and application amount, the payment of wages and allowances to employees, the relocation of office expenses and appropriation of flight funds, etc., the Defendants are mutually ambiguous to the victims who are employees by defrauding and resolving the money, and there is no intention or ability to return the principal, but the victims have been able to obtain profits due to the business of the company.