1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts, around November 2014, agreed between the Defendant and the Plaintiff to establish a solar boiler by providing the Defendant’s technology to the factory provided by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 12 million to the Defendant’s account in the Defendant’s wife C by January 8, 2015 to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant’s wife, either the dispute between the parties, or the entire purport of the pleadings, may be acknowledged by taking into account the following as a whole: (a) evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1-1.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on November 201, 2014, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to create the prototype of the solar boiler, and suggested that the Plaintiff make a business of creating the prototype of the solar boiler with a very efficient efficiency, and deceiving the Plaintiff by making a false statement that it is necessary to make an investment of KRW 12 million in order to create the prototype of the solar boiler. The Plaintiff, in this context, remitted KRW 12 million to the account in the name of the Defendant’s wife C.

Therefore, since the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff as a tortfeasor, the defendant is obligated to pay damages of 12 million won and damages for delay.

3. The fact that the Defendant received KRW 12 million from the Plaintiff for the purpose of creating a prototype of the solar boiler system is as seen earlier.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff in connection with the manufacture of the Taeyang Boiler Product, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

[In full view of the purport of the evidence No. 16 in the statement No. 16, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the purport that it is a crime of fraud as alleged in the instant case, but it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant had a criminal intent to obtain fraud in the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2017No1801) on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant had a criminal intent to obtain fraud, and that the judgment became final and conclusive.