손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she received a monetary loan agreement (No. 87 of 2015) to the effect that if he/she lends KRW 65 million to E on October 30, 2015, and if he/she fails to pay KRW 95 million from E on the same day by November 30, 2015, he/she shall not raise any objection even if he/she immediately executes compulsory execution, and there is no counter-proof.
The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case, first of all, although the defendants did not have the intent or ability to repay money even if they borrowed money, the plaintiff in collusion with E and filed damages equivalent to the above amount with the joint tort liability due to the fraud with the defendants, claiming that "if the plaintiff was unable to pay appraisal expenses because it was not executed because it provided as security to banks and completed appraisal in order to obtain a loan of KRW 3 billion to KRW 3 billion through KRW 3.5 billion from among the 1st, 4th, the 4th, the building owned by Eul, which is owned by Eul, and operated by Eul, the plaintiff would receive a loan from the plaintiff and receive KRW 65 million from the plaintiff as above, and that the defendant was guilty of the above amount.
According to the above evidence and evidence Nos. 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 8-5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant C listens to the phrase that when the appraisal cost is invested by Eul, it is possible to obtain a loan from the bank and return interest on the investment principal to the defendant B, and deliver it to the defendant Eul. The defendant Eul heard the above horses of the defendant C and introduced the plaintiff to Eul. The defendant Eul may recognize the fact that it was accompanied with the defendant Eul in the form of preparing a notarial deed, but further, the evidence and arguments mentioned above are examined.