1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Busan Coast Guard with the purport of deceiving the Plaintiff on December 2, 2011, and allowing the Plaintiff to purchase FF loan 401 (hereinafter “FF loan”) from the Busan Coast Guard, and deceiving the Plaintiff without any intent or ability to repay, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff and deceiving the Plaintiff to acquire KRW 103,50,000 through 12 times. Defendant G, H, and I filed a complaint with the Defendant, H, and I to the effect that E acquired money from the said complainant without any intent or ability to repay.

B. E was indicted on charges of fraud, etc. against the above complainants including the Plaintiff and the Defendant on October 2, 2012, and was convicted of five years of imprisonment (the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch Decision 2012JE 2055, 2012, 2012, 2363, 2012, 2498, 2012, 3252, 2012, 2012, 2012, 3252, 200, 2012, 200)

(C) On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 9, 2014, and was sentenced to the first instance judgment on October 16, 2014. On or around December 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 64,550,00 from the Plaintiff without any intent or ability to repay the said amount, as the Plaintiff requested in the instant lawsuit, and subsequently filed a complaint against the Defendant with the purport that the Defendant evaded compulsory execution by concealing the property after being sentenced to the judgment of the first instance court of this case (I and H filed a complaint against the Plaintiff other than the Plaintiff). The Busan District Prosecutors’ Office transferred the money to the Defendant’s account in the course of the investigation into the case of E in relation to the fraudulent part against the Plaintiff among the facts of the instant complaint, to the Defendant’s account in the course of investigation into the case of E.

or the defendant does not receive money in favor of the plaintiff.

'', on the basis of the statements such as the statement, made a decision not to prosecute the defendant (incompetence of evidence) and made the same decision as to the suspicion of fraud caused by the complaint by I and H.

Grounds for recognition: Each entry and pleading of Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 12-2, Eul evidence 9, and 10.