1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. The summary of the claim is that the defendant shall belong to the plaintiff and shall receive KRW 50 million from the plaintiff and shall pay KRW 30 million to the plaintiff with the remainder of KRW 20 million. Thus, the defendant shall pay KRW 20 million to the plaintiff with the damages incurred by the tort.

B. The above facts acknowledged that the defendant received a final judgment of conviction for the following facts constituting the crime

[The first instance court is the representative director of the D Co., Ltd. in Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the defendant is the defendant's representative director of the D Co., Ltd. in the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office on January 201, and the victim A is operating its underground parking lot and underground passage for 20 years, using it in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the roads in front of the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Central District Court (U.S.), and the appellate court is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the appellate court is the 2013No3146 case (U.S. 4 months of imprisonment), and the Supreme Court is the 2013Do14097 (Dismissal dismissal).

"A person who can begin construction on the three-month basis" and "a person who lends 50 million won to another person shall be able to do construction after three months, and the principal and interest shall be repaid.

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

However, the defendant did not have any specific consultation with the Seocho-gu Office in relation to underground parking lots and underground passage construction projects in front of the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul, and it was unclear whether the project was carried out, such as the discovery of base teams in the underground, and there was no profit in the course of the existing implementation project, and there was no other property or income, and there was no intention or ability to pay the above amount to the victim

On January 28, 2011, the Defendant, from the victim, is liable to borrow money through the above D’s account. 5.