1. The Defendant: 50,000,000 won to Plaintiff A, and 5% per annum from March 16, 2017 to September 19, 2018, respectively.

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

A and the defendant are private villages, and the plaintiff A and the defendant have suffered losses after making a stock investment through the defendant engaged in the financial business around 2008, and the plaintiff B are the friendships of the plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

A transferred KRW 60,000,000 to D’s account designated by the Defendant, and KRW 50,000,000 on September 14, 2009 to E’s account designated by the Defendant. The Plaintiff B remitted KRW 60,000,000 to the above D’s account on August 14, 2009.

[Based on] No dispute exists, the plaintiffs asserted as to the claim of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10 (including the number of branch numbers), and the overall purport of the arguments, and the claim of the whole purport of the arguments, shall be subject to the defendant, ① to obtain the plaintiff A's permission before the purchase of shares, ② to obtain a loan certificate and security from the M&A forces related to the defendant (hereinafter "investment terms of this case") (hereinafter "the investment terms of this case") on the condition that the plaintiff Gap invested KRW 100,000,000, and the plaintiff Eul invested KRW 60,000,000 each of the investment terms of this case.

On November 12, 2009, the Defendant promised to pay KRW 160,000,000 through the e-mail (Evidence A6) sent to the Plaintiff, and entered into a quasi-loan agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

The basis of an agreement on quasi-loan for consumption lies in Chapter 3 (Evidence 8-1 to 3) written by the Defendant except the above e-mail, and e-mail (Evidence 7) written by the Defendant on January 20, 2010.

The Defendant promised to pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff through the payment note (Evidence 8-1 of August 15, 2009), the payment angle (Evidence 8-2 of August 30, 2009), and the payment angle (Evidence 8-3 of September 2009) from August 30, 209.

Since the Defendant not only did it comply with the investment terms of this case but also embezzled the investment money received from the Plaintiffs differently from the agreement by using it for other purposes, it is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for the money they invested in default or tort.

The plaintiffs.