대여금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. From October 7, 201 to August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 14,600,000 to the national bank account (Account Number G; hereinafter referred to as “C account”) in the name of the national bank account in the name of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) as shown in the following table.
(1) The amount of KRW 10,00,000, transferred to C account on October 7, 201, 201; KRW 2,500,000 on January 12, 2012; KRW 400,50,000 on March 16, 201; KRW 10,000 on March 16, 201; KRW 50,000 on August 13, 201; KRW 60,00,00 on August 13, 2012; and KRW 10,00,000 on August 13, 200; and KRW 60,00,00,000 on August 13, 201; and KRW 10,000 on August 13, 13, 200; and
B. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant, by means of notifying the Plaintiff of false facts as to the development prospects and whether it is possible to register the forest land H 13,607,986 square meters in Gangwon-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) in the manner of deceiving the Plaintiff, and by deceiving the Plaintiff to take over KRW 95,00,000 for the purchase price, and by deceiving the Plaintiff to take over KRW 38,40,000 for five times without any intent and ability to repay within several days, and by deceiving the Plaintiff to take over the relevant amount within five times in the manner of borrowing KRW 2,3,5,800 (No. 2,3,5,8,90 in the foregoing table)” and filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant as a fraud.
C. Since then, the Defendant was indicted on May 23, 2016 by Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan2901 on the charge of deceiving the Plaintiff without any intention or ability to transfer the ownership of the land and deceiving the Plaintiff 95,00,000 won for the purchase price. The above court rendered a judgment of innocence on January 13, 2017 on the ground that there is no proof of crime against the facts charged. The prosecutor appealed against the above judgment and filed an appeal with the same court 2017No417, Jun. 23, 2017.