2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 11, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C, the father of the Defendant, under which C purchased the second floor shopping mall E (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) of the building D in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, the Plaintiff owned, in the name of the Defendant, at the price of KRW 60 million, and the Plaintiff would borrow the instant shopping mall as collateral and pay the price thereof (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant commercial building on the Defendant’s future. On the same day, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant commercial building with respect to the Defendant, the Defendant, and the maximum amount of debt KRW 91,00,000,000 from the F Association.

C. As the Plaintiff did not receive the price under the instant contract, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant on the suspicion that he acquired the amount equivalent to C and the Defendant’s above price, but only C was indicted for fraud and was convicted of a conviction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. First, the Plaintiff seeks payment from the Defendant under the instant contract on the premise that the Defendant is a party to the instant contract.

However, according to the above facts and the above evidence, the parties who concluded the contract of this case with the plaintiff are the father of the defendant, and the defendant can be recognized as only lending the name to C. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Next, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the amount equivalent to the above price to the Defendant on the premise that the Defendant, along with C, had the Plaintiff enter into the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff and defrauded the amount equivalent to the above price.

However, the Defendant conspiredd with C solely on the ground that the Defendant and C were women or the Defendant lent the name to C.

No one shall be deemed to have participated in the crime of defraudation of C, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.