A. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the business right from the Defendant to “Yansan-san Trare Restoration and Recycling Technology” (hereinafter “instant technology”) and granted the Defendant KRW 70 million as an advisory fee.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff rendered advisory fees of KRW 33460,00 to the Defendant.

C. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiff is as follows.

The defendant notified the cancellation of the contract of this case on the ground of fraud, and the defendant received this time.

The Defendant was sentenced to a conviction of 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that “The Defendant did not have the intent or ability to transfer the instant technology, even if receiving advisory fees from the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Defendant was sentenced to a conviction of 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on the ground that “the instant technology was not completed at the time of the instant contract.”

(U) Supreme Court Decision 2014No2024 Decided December 18, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do964 Decided March 11, 2016, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do964 Decided March 17, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 2016 Decided March 17, 2016). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition” 【No dispute, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 12-18, and the purport

2. Determination

A. In a civil trial on the relevant legal principles, even if it is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis was found guilty is significant evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial unless it is acknowledged that

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da9621 delivered on May 28, 1996, etc.). B.

In the instant case, there are special circumstances in which it is difficult to accept the factual determination of the instant judgment solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the testimony of the witness B and C.