beta
Text
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 20, 2019, the Defendant was prosecuted on the following facts constituting the crime and was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and six months on May 14, 2020 (Seoul District Court Decision 2019 Goll Branch Branch Branch 255). The Defendant appealed on December 24, 2020, but was sentenced to a judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the Defendant’s criminal facts against the Plaintiff on December 24, 2020 (Seoul District Court Decision 2020No. 2020No. 2020). The Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of the Defendant on May 20, 2018 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch 2020NoNo. 2020). The Defendant, at the Seocho-si Branch Branch C Building D photographer around early May 2018, “Any money play in the name of lending bonds to A, and any false statement was made by lending the card issued in the name of a corporation that would reduce the payment due to lack of funds.”
However, in fact, the Defendant did not engage in the loan business, and did not have any particular property or fixed income, and on August 24, 2016, the Defendant was registered as a person with no debt (the registered amount: KRW 15,785,000) on August 24, 2016, and there was a debt of approximately KRW 30,00,000 on other bond business operators. Thus, the Defendant was considered to have received the said card and used it as personal debt and cost of living, and there was no intention or ability to pay the card price as promised to the victim.
In this regard, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) obtained a credit card from May 10, 2018 to June 30, 2018; and (c) paid a sum of KRW 72,947,940 to June 30, 2018, the Defendant acquired a pecuniary benefit equivalent to that amount by failing to pay the credit card payment even after paying the credit card.
On June 11, 2018, the Defendant is well aware of the project that is currently being promoted to the victim.
In order to expand the business, it was false to the purport that the funds need to be more needed, and the funds are financed by borrowing them.
However, in fact, the Defendant did not engage in the lending business, did not have any property or fixed income, and was in default on August 24, 2016.