1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around February 2017, the representative E of the Plaintiff Company agreed to make an investment in the production cost, etc. of mobile phone exhaust case (hereinafter “instant product”) between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) who was in office as the representative of Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and distribute profits therefrom.

B. From July 29, 2017 to October 31, 2017, Plaintiff Company remitted KRW 10,000,000 to Defendant Company four times each month, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

A. The primary claim Plaintiff paid KRW 40,00,000 from July 2017 to October 2017, and the Defendants promised to guarantee the principal when the Plaintiff paid the development service cost. As such, the principal should be returned jointly and severally in accordance with the agreement.

B. The Defendants, who received KRW 40,000,000 from the Plaintiff as the development service cost, and used the said money without proceeding to develop the products, are required to jointly pay or return the said money with compensation for damages or unjust enrichment arising from the tort.

3. Determination

A. Even if following the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the primary claim, the Plaintiff paid development service costs to the Defendants, so it is difficult to view it as a loan.

Meanwhile, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is understood as the return claim under the principal guarantee agreement, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants promised to return the principal to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s primary claim.

B. 1) First of all, as to the conjunctive claim for damages arising from a tort, the Defendants acquired 40,000,000 won by deception, following the statement of No. 13, and the Plaintiff’s statement of No. 13.