1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as annual 5% from December 2, 2014 to July 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the actual owner of Gyeonggi-do Dang-dong 302 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On April 12, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff regarding the instant real estate at the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Gyeonggi-gun, the Defendant concluded a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, stating that “When concluding a lease contract on the instant real estate, the Defendant would cancel the entire second priority mortgage set forth in the instant real estate as a lease deposit and pay KRW 30 million out of the first priority collateral obligation of KRW 60 million.”

However, even if the Defendant received KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff as the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis, it was thought that it was used for the purpose of returning the deposit for the lease to the existing lessee under the above CBL 302 and 402, and thus, there was no intention or ability to use it for the cancellation or reduction of the right to collateral security

C. As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, received KRW 1 million in cash from the Plaintiff as the down payment on the same day as the down payment, and around May 7, 2014, transferred KRW 20 million to the account in the name of the Defendant’s bank under the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 60 million in total on May 10, 2014, including receipt of KRW 39 million in cashier’s checks under the name of the remainder payment.

On September 29, 2016, the Defendant was convicted of having been sentenced to six months of imprisonment (the above court 2016 order 303) with prison labor for the above facts constituting the crime.

(Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, by deceiving the plaintiff, obtained the above KRW 60 million from the plaintiff as the deposit money for the lease on a deposit basis, thereby causing property damage equivalent to the above KRW 60 million to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff suffered from the above tort.