The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a contract is not constituted inconsistent with a doctor’s intention, the claim for damages caused by negligence in concluding a contract cannot be made by analogically applying Article 535 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the other party knew or could have known that the contract would not be constituted, separate from whether the party who suffered losses may claim for the return of unjust enrichment or for tort.

2.(a)

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the evidence adopted, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On June 11, 2013, the person under whose name the person under whose name the contract was not made calls to the counter defendant A to purchase KRW 31 million, stating that he/she is named E and that he/she will purchase KRW 31 million by adding his/her own money to the money in the middle and high vehicle sale, which is the vehicle of the counter defendant.

B. On June 10, 2013, 2013, Luxembourg introduced "G where a male employee on the part of the Lessee was involved in the transaction before her, without disclosing his/her name by telephone," and said "G where she had a relation between the borrower and her own debt, she entered into a contract with the borrower and sent the money to her."

(1) On June 11, 2013, H of the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s agent: (a) continued to enter into a contract with the counter Defendant A or enter into a contract; (b) drafted a sales contract that is not entered in the purchase price; and (c) included the account number and account holder’s account number and account holder’s account name in currency with the counter Defendant A; and (d) charged the counter Defendant A with the remittance of money.

On the other hand, the counterclaim Defendant A responded to H as the “inbound”, and accordingly H remitted KRW 26 million to the account under J’s name.

Applicant, however, the person who has failed to pay 31 million won as agreed to the counter defendant A.

Accordingly, the counterclaim Defendant A and H were subjected to fraud by the immediately police station.