The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant was in a past relationship with the victim C, and that the Daegu District Court located in the Daegu Suwon-dong, Daegu-gu, on June 13, 2011, did not lend money to the defendant, but the plaintiff lent KRW 12,00,000 to the defendant although the defendant did not comply with the demand of the plaintiff for payment for the above loan more than once, the defendant extended the deadline for the next day, and the defendant did not comply with the demand of the plaintiff for payment without any justifiable reasons. Thus, the defendant submitted a written complaint stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,00,000 won and the amount with 20% interest per annum from the day following the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint to the date of complete payment," but the victim responded to this and lost the plaintiff.

The Defendant, as such, attempted to acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above money by deceiving the full bench in charge and ordering the full bench in charge to pay the victim 12,00,000 won to the full bench, but did not have attempted by the victim’s response.

2. The judgment fraud is aimed at deceiving the court and deceiving a third party's property. In order to be recognized as fraud, it is insufficient to say that there is no right such as the assertion at the time of the lawsuit does not exist. The awareness that the court is deceiving the court by means of false assertion and proof even if it is well known that there is no right to claim.

In a case where there is an intention to deception a court by filing a false lawsuit with a false content, deceiving the court is a means of deception if the allegations by the parties are sufficient to deceive the court even if the false evidence is not always used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7262, Sept. 8, 2011). In this case, the defendant recognizes that there is no money lending to the victim, and it is unclear whether the defendant has paid cash to the victim.