1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 24, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the Plaintiff, “D” located in the Si of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, Busan Metropolitan City, stating that “I would normally pay the Plaintiff the face value of the mobile phone under the name of the party.”

However, in fact, even if the plaintiff opened a mobile phone through the opening of the mobile phone, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the fee normally, because the account entered in the new contract for subscription to the mobile phone that the defendant would pay the fee.

B. As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, had the Plaintiff open a gallon road (an amount equivalent to KRW 965,800) from the Plaintiff, obtained the relevant mobile phone and acquired it by defrauded, and had the Plaintiff impose a approximately KRW 400,000 of the mobile phone fee by May 4, 2016, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff.

C. On December 29, 2016, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 (No. 2016 high-ranking7036) from the branch court of the Busan District Court with regard to the above facts, and the said summary order was finalized on February 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff and defrauds the plaintiff a total of three million won, thereby seeking payment of KRW 3 million for property damage and mental damage 1,365,800 for property damage caused by tort.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of KRW 1,365,80,00 (=965,800,000), which is the damage caused by the fraudulent act.

In addition to the above amount of recognition, the Plaintiff alleged that the damage had occurred to KRW 1,634,200, but it is not sufficient to recognize the damage only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including a provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply). There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Meanwhile, in a case where a property right is infringed due to a tort of another person, mental suffering is also deemed to have been recovered by compensation for such property damage, and property damage is deemed to have been property damage.