The defendant will pay 10,000,000 won to the applicant D.

The Defendant, who operated “I” corporation located in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Busan-gun, and was whose business had been cancelled on or around July 1, 2012 because it was established around May 2, 2012, and had no record of sales, and was revoked on or around July 1, 2013, and the Seoul branch’s business was suspended due to the discontinuance of construction works ordered at the branch, and the suspension of the business of the Seoul branch. Since the Defendant failed to pay personnel expenses and material expenses for the construction ordered by the said company, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to complete the relevant construction works even if the Defendant received construction expenses from the victim J et al., for the reason that there was no intention or ability to complete the construction works.

1. On July 12, 2012, the Defendant against the victim J would offer the victim J a house of 30 square meters or less to 75 million won at the victim J’s office at the said “I” office.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to complete the construction work within 30 square meters even if he received the construction cost equivalent to the above amount from the injured party as above.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained KRW 10 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant on July 14, 2012, as the down payment, and acquired KRW 35 million in the name of the commencement cost of construction around January 2, 2013, KRW 13 million in the name of intermediate payment around May 23, 2013, and KRW 10 million in the aggregate as the construction cost around June 28, 2013.

2. On March 2013, 2013, the Defendant against the victim E would give the victim E with KRW 147,000,000,000,000 at the above “I” office, and the victim E would give the victim E with the construction of a wooden house.

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

However, the defendant at the time of the above construction cost equivalent to the above amount from the injured party.