1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are between the son and the son, and the Defendants are both married couple.

B. The Plaintiff was solicited from Defendant B and D in the same business relationship with the Plaintiff to invest in the purchase business of pine trees owned by G (hereinafter “instant business”). On November 13, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 55,000,000 to the above two persons on November 13, 2009.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). The main contents are as follows:

on October 30, 2010: 55,000 won due date: 6.7% per annum (payment on October 12, 201)

C. Around November 12, 2009, loan 55,000,000 won under the loan agreement of this case was created against the Bank of Korea, Inc., 66,000,000 collateral security (the maximum debt amount), which is the maximum debt amount, 66,00,000 won, for the Bank of Korea, around November 12, 2009 by E, the Plaintiff’s wife.

On November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) deducted KRW 5,000,000,000, which was remitted from the said money to the passbook under D’s name on November 6, 2009; and (b) issued the remaining KRW 50,000,000 as one copy of the check; and (c) delivered it to Defendant B and D.

On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants and D seeking a loan of KRW 55,000,000 on November 13, 2009 against the Defendants and D.

(B) On November 22, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant C’s claim against the Defendant B and D on November 22, 2012. The court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim against the Defendant C by deeming it difficult to recognize that the Defendant C borrowed the said money from the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 13, 2013 (Seoul District Court 2013Na10062), and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

F. On February 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendants and D on the charge of fraud. On the part of the Defendant, the Young Police Station that investigated the instant accusation case was not prosecuted against the Defendant B and D, and the Defendant C was not prosecuted (suspected).