2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in a construction and supply business under the trade name of “E”.

Co-Defendant D Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “instant company”) is a company of KRW 1 million established on February 17, 2014 for the purpose of general construction business, etc., and Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial is the representative director of the instant company and actually operated the said company. The Defendant was the only internal director for the registration of the said company from February 17, 2014 to March 18, 2016, when the said company was incorporated.

B. B around May 25, 2014, at the office of the instant company it operated, the Plaintiff stated that “The instant company would remove existing buildings and implement a new business of constructing officetels on approximately 513 parcels of land H and I at Port-si, and the project cost is insufficient. If it lends KRW 100 million with the company’s business fund, it would allow the company to subcontract reinforced concrete construction among the said new construction, and the borrowed money will be repaid until September 2014.”

However, in fact, B did not have any intention or ability to pay to the Plaintiff the money that subcontracted or borrowed reinforced concrete construction.

B by deceiving the Plaintiff as above, and then deceiving the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff on May 30, 2014, the sum of KRW 50 million, and KRW 50 million around June 5, 2014, and KRW 100 million, respectively.

C. In addition, around July 22, 2014, B stated that “The instant company requires additional funds to carry out the said new construction project. If the company loans KRW 100 million with the company’s business funds, the amount of money borrowed from the said new construction project to be subcontracted for the civil engineering project would be repaid until August 2014.”

However, in fact, B did not have any intention or ability to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of money given by subcontracting or borrowing the civil engineering work.

B, as seen above, deceiving the Plaintiff and then deceiving the Plaintiff by receiving KRW 98 million from the Plaintiff around July 22, 2014.

B As above, the Plaintiff was accused on two occasions, and the sum of KRW 198 million is limited to 20 million.