1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) in addition to determining the Defendant’s additional assertion in the trial of the first instance, the following is added to the Defendant’s argument in the trial of the first instance; and (b) in addition, it is like the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance; and (c) in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act,

“Third, the Defendant asserts that, with respect to KRW 8.5 million received from the Plaintiff on December 11, 2012, the Defendant received part of the sales price of the instant store in advance. However, F’s acquisition of the instant store is a patrolman in January 2013, and it is difficult to gain the Plaintiff’s payment of the said money in advance to the Defendant in the absence of the amount of the sales price determined before the store purchaser appeared.”

2. Judgment on the defendant's additional assertion

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is only KRW 60 million to KRW 70 million. The Plaintiff, by deceiving the Defendant that the purchase price of the instant store was KRW 120 million to KRW 110 million, had the Defendant take over the said store at KRW 110 million. The Plaintiff received the said purchase price and received the said KRW 35 million to KRW 50 million to KRW 50 million to the head office, and acquired it without delivering it to the head office.

Therefore, the defendant set off the plaintiff's loan claim with the damage claim against the above fraud money.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 6, around June 2012, the Plaintiff was deemed to have received KRW 50 million from the Defendant’s mother on June 14, 2012, a check of KRW 110,000,000,000, out of the checks received from the Defendant as the purchase price for the instant store. However, the Plaintiff had deceiving the Defendant on the purchase price for the instant store solely on such fact.

It is insufficient to recognize that part of the purchase price has been acquired by deception.

Rather, the written evidence of Gap Nos. 21 to 24 and the court of the trial.