1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 201, the Plaintiff attended the business explanation meeting of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with the Defendant’s introduction and recommended to invest in the debt collection-related business of the Nonparty Company, and deposited KRW 100 million in the Nonparty Company via D, the Plaintiff’s spouse, etc.

B. The representative E, etc. of the non-party company and related persons of the non-party company were indicted for violating the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission and the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and the non-party company was charged with the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and the plaintiff filed an application for compensation with the victim of the above case. The judgment of conviction against the non-party E

(Reasons for Recognition) The facts that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 3, 4, Eul's 3, witness F's testimony, part of the witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the defendant actively participated in the non-party company's illegal acts and recommended the plaintiff to make an investment, and that the defendant is obligated to pay 40 million won to the plaintiff as compensation for economic damages, such as the loan of KRW 100 million, expected profit, and mental damages, since he promised to assume the responsibility for damages incurred to the plaintiff due to the investment in the process.

B. The Defendant took part in the tort of the non-party company solely based on the written statements on Gap's 2-5, Gap's 7-9 (including paper numbers) and Gap's 6 video and witness F's testimony

It is insufficient to recognize that the promise was made to compensate for the plaintiff's loss due to investment in the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.