1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff Defendant, in the name of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, operated an information and communications business using a Handphone device, and the Plaintiff visited the above D office in May 2012 on the ground that he/she would be represented by E.

At the time, Defendant and E recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment that they would guarantee the principal of the investment, which is KRW 3.4 million on June 25, 2012 to the Defendant’s account;

6. 27.5 million won was remitted, which was not returned.

In other words, the defendant started with the beginning of the early 2008 Police Officer and started the investment attraction business jointly with F and E during the early 2008 Police Officer, recruited investors by the plaintiff et al., and failed to return the investment amount properly, in preparation for criminal fraud, the defendant first filed a complaint with the Seoul Coast Guard with E and G, etc. around August 2012, and when the complainant was investigated as a suspect, he forced E and G to prepare a false confirmation document and received a cash custody certificate by finding E on January 4, 2012.

The defendant, as E, G and its partner, took profits while participating in the above business, such as receiving money from investment by using three passbooks in his name, and is a substantive operator such as keeping all relevant documents.

Since the Defendant did not pay the above investment amount to the Plaintiff at all, the Defendant is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment.

B. Defendant G only lent the Defendant’s name to open a deposit account upon the Defendant’s request, and did not recommend investment on the condition that the Plaintiff guarantees investment returns, and did not participate in the transaction between the Plaintiff and E.

Rather, F was subject to criminal punishment due to fraud, etc. (Evidence B No. 1, 2, and 9) while attracting investment in D with its trade name, and E was punished as an accomplice (Evidence B No. 3, 4, and 8), and Defendant also was damaged by KRW 182,00,000,000.