A. On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new automobile maintenance plant for one parcel of land outside Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant construction”). From May 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014, with regard to the construction cost of KRW 1,150,000,000 and the construction period of construction, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a new automobile maintenance plant for one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(1) The sum of KRW 10,000,000, KRW 10,000,000 on May 2, 2014, 2014, around May 2, 2014, KRW 25,000,00 on May 13, 2014, around May 14, 2014, KRW 25,000,000 on May 21, 2014, KRW 5,000 on June 21, 2014, KRW 15,000,000 on June 21, 2014, KRW 250,000 on July 1, 2014, KRW 70,000 on the completion payment of KRW 70,00 on July 31, 2014, KRW 200,00 on the aggregate of KRW 25,005,00 on the completion payment.

B. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 725,000,000 to the Defendant for the instant construction work as follows:

C. Of the above KRW 725,00,000 received from the Plaintiff, the Defendant invested only KRW 360,000,000 in the instant construction project and used the remainder money for the introduction of the said construction to the persons who introduced the said construction, and the construction cost at another construction site. The said construction was interrupted on September 2014, while only approximately 20% of the construction was proceeded, and was completed by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant was indicted for fraud by Suwon District Court Decision 2016Da2548 on March 24, 2017, and was in charge of performing several construction sites in Seoul, Gyeonggi-do, Ulsan, and Gunn, etc. without any plan to procure construction expenses, and thus, the construction expenses that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff are used as construction expenses in other construction sites and the Defendant’s living expenses, etc., and if a new construction contract is concluded later or the construction expenses are paid at other construction sites as above, it would be necessary to use the said construction expenses as the relevant construction expenses, even if the Plaintiff received the construction expenses from the Plaintiff, even if it did not have the intent or ability to complete the automobile maintenance plant by August 31, 2014, by deceiving the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff did not have any capacity to complete the automobile maintenance plant by the time of August 31, 2014.