1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, who operates an indoor building office, registered a business as a construction and manufacturing business, is engaged in general building construction works and interior construction works, and as management director of K General Construction Business License Co., Ltd. (former E-General Construction) with a comprehensive construction business license, and thus, the construction business requiring a comprehensive construction license was ordered to undergo construction works in the name of the company after consultation with the company.

In order to operate a child-care center, the Plaintiff purchased land and buildings from He/she was the owner of the Daejeon-gu H and I land and the J, and requested the J to introduce and request the business operator to remodel the building, thereby introducing the Defendant. The Defendant introduced A to introduce A the architect F to request A to do the issue of authorization and permission and remodeling design.

B. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff sent KRW 1,00,00 to the Defendant. On April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Daejeon Central District Child Care Center D (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) with the construction cost of KRW 180,000,000 and the construction period from April 2012 to June 2012 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant for additional construction works, such as the discharge and removal of septic tanks, the report on the destruction of facilities, or the reporting on the destruction of facilities, and paid KRW 24,00,000 to the Defendant as the down payment. On the same day, the Plaintiff agreed that the construction of new building was 5,00,000,000,000,000,000 won.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for fraud by asserting that the Defendant was unaware of the Plaintiff that he was not entitled to execute child care centers due to the lack of comprehensive construction license, and that the Defendant was not guilty in both the first instance and the appellate judgment against the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including branch numbers), the whole pleadings.