beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is bound to create a legal basis in Yangsan-si’s residential area and engage in intangible conduct, such as the surrender and surrender.
B. The Plaintiff and D filed a complaint against the Defendant as a crime of fraud on the ground that they acquired the value of the high value of the contract.
The Defendant, on June 11, 2018, issued the Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Ra132, Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Ma132, “The Defendant, taking advantage of the imminent circumstances of D, was thought to have received the value of the deposit, and, even if the Plaintiff’s exercise of the deposit was not possible to decide on whether D or his family members have a ple or not, he had the right to receive the deposit. In addition, the Defendant, by deceiving D or his family members so that it would be uneasible if he did not have the right to receive the deposit, and, even if he did not have the right to receive the deposit, he had the right to receive the deposit, and then, he was accused of the Defendant’s total amount of the deposit money of KRW 789,676,840 from D from November 10, 209 to April 20, 2016, by deceiving the Plaintiff from around 13, 2013 to 205.
C. As to this, the Defendant appealed as Busan High Court 2018No746, May 30, 2019, the Busan High Court stated that “it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to prove that the Defendant received KRW 441,175,770 of the above facts charged from D, and the remaining 348,50 won (=6,676,840 - 441,175,70 won - 441,770 won), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone presented by the Defendant cannot be deemed to have proved that “the Defendant deceivingd D by deceiving it beyond the permissible limit as traditional custom or religious act, thereby deceiving it as to the value of the right of redemption.” As to the facts charged with the Plaintiff, “the Plaintiff is one’s mother, and thus, is one’s own mother, so it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has obtained the value of the right of redemption.”