1. Defendant B and C shall be jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff, as to KRW 63,00,000, and KRW 60,000 among them, and Defendant B shall be liable to the Plaintiff on April 16, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff sought an explanation from the Defendants that a company selling the Internet video phone of the mobile phone terminal, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) may receive allowances, etc. from the Defendants, and then delivered cash of KRW 3.3 million to the Defendants on March 1, 201, and remitted KRW 33 million to Defendant D’s account on April 29, 201, and KRW 12 million on May 26, 201, respectively. The Plaintiff wired KRW 15 million on June 27, 201 to Defendant B’s account.

B. The above money paid by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant money”) was confirmed to have been transferred to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of G designated by Nonparty F, the president of the non-party company.

C. Defendant B promised to assume the responsibility of Defendant B if the non-party company erred with respect to the entirety of the Plaintiff’s investments in the company outside the lawsuit. At the time of the request for return, Defendant B prepared a letter of guarantee (Evidence A2; hereinafter “instant letter of guarantee”).

On the other hand, Defendant C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on May 7, 2015 due to the violation of the Act on Fraud and Door-to-Door Sales, etc., on the grounds that he/she committed an offense in collusion with Nonparty F (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2014Kadan1791), and the judgment became final and conclusive.

E. The non-party company has changed its trade name several times thereafter, and since 2013, the Internet homepage was closed and has not been operated normally.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 12 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of purchase price with the Defendants, as the employees of the non-party company, to purchase the mobile phone, and did not supply the mobile phone device even after receiving the instant money, thereby making the Plaintiff concluded with the Defendants around June 2013.