An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Around April 6, 2009, the Defendant against the victim D, at the Seo-gu E restaurant, Seo-gu, Daejeon, called, “A factory in which the Defendant has one telecom and has one telecom in the Dong-gu, Daejeon, and has been employed by a construction company within the inside and outside the country. At the same time, the Plaintiff operated a business with the total advertising right of gasoline-type Gyeonggi-do at KRW 600 million. The amount to be contracted has almost been set off. The remainder is that the amount to enter into the contract has almost been cut off. If the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000,000,000 won, it would be used as a business contract and repaid without being drawn up within one month with interest added.”

However, the facts were that the Defendant did not own a Moel or operate a construction company, and the credit card amounting to KRW 20 million was in bad credit standing due to overdue credit card payments, and the name of “F”, which was known to the victim, was also named.

In the gasoline additives business where the Defendant was seeking to run, a total amount of KRW 750 million is required to be invested in the amount of KRW 750 million (50 million for an object, KRW 50 million for a down payment, KRW 50 million for a down payment). By that time, the amount of money that the Defendant was entering the office and the warehouse was limited to KRW 15 million for the Defendant to obtain the office and the warehouse, and KRW 35 million for the remainder of the down payment, other than some down payment, in addition to the above-mentioned down payment, through the victim, the amount of KRW 35 million for several years, and it was inevitable to expect that the Defendant would be able to receive and pay the money that he borrowed from the Republic of Korea with the escape of the Republic of Korea.

In addition, the defendant only has a debt equivalent to KRW 30 million, and there was no particular property or income, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it as agreed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby deceiving it from the victim, the National Bank under the H name of April 8, 2009.