1. From September 1, 2012 to May 28, 2015, Defendant B paid KRW 142,140,00 to the Plaintiff and KRW 142,140,00 of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2010, the Plaintiff listened to the statement that “if the Plaintiff borrowed money, it would sell real estate at auction within six months and pay 10% of the money borrowed from Defendant B as profit.” The Plaintiff loaned KRW 4,800,000 to Defendant C’s account in a de facto marital relationship with Defendant B from that time to September 1, 2012, as shown in attached Table 1, from that time, lent KRW 157,140,000 as shown in attached Table 1.

B. On December 16, 201, Defendant B paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the above borrowed amount, but did not pay the remainder of the borrowed amount and the profit.

C. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant B on charges of fraud with the Yeongdeungpo Police Station, and on December 29, 2014, the Mapo-si Office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office prosecuted Defendant B as Defendant B’s crime of fraud with Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Kadan1325 (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Dadan1325).

Defendant B acknowledged the facts charged that Defendant B acquired KRW 157,140,000 from the Plaintiff on January 23, 2015 at the seventh trial of the instant case No. 2014Kadan1325 on January 23, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 6-1 through 4, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant B (1) liability for damages, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B, even though it did not intend or have the ability to repay money from the Plaintiff, by deceiving the Plaintiff even though it did not have the intent or ability to repay it, Defendant B, barring special circumstances, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the money fraud as stated in the attached Table 1, which is the damage suffered by the Plaintiff caused by the above illegal act, and its delay damages. (2) The scope of liability for damages is that Defendant B, as shown in the attached Table 1, acquiring money from the Plaintiff, constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff individually, and the liability for damages caused by the illegal act is established at the same time as each illegal act is established in light of the concept of fairness.