1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. D, the actual president of F, a stock company F, provided promissory notes with face value of KRW 15,00,000,000 for the issuance of F, which is anticipated to be defaulted, as collateral, and deceiving the Plaintiff to lend money, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff, which was paid KRW 14,40,000 from the Plaintiff on February 28, 2008. Defendant B, the representative director of F, actively participated in the act of fraud, such as the actual issuance of the said promissory notes, and committed tort against the Plaintiff.

B. After the above tort, Defendant B concealed the property of the leased deposit and corporeal movables inside the restaurant in the name of Defendant C, which is his father, in order to evade the compulsory execution of the Plaintiff, who is the creditor, by means of using the business registration of the restaurant that he leased and operated under the name of Defendant B, and the Defendant C assisted and assisted the act of evading compulsory execution under the above Defendant B by granting the business registration in his name.

C. The above Defendants’ act constitutes a joint tort against the Plaintiff. The Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 14,400,000 paid to D as compensation for damages, and its delay damages.

2. In conclusion, Defendant B actively participated in the act of fraud of D, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants concealed property to evade compulsory execution by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

After the closing of pleadings, the Plaintiff filed an application for resumption of pleadings on June 8, 2012, along with the fact-finding inquiry application, the request for the dispatch of documents, and the submission of documentary evidence. However, on May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff did not comply with the Defendants’ petition of appeal and the notice of the date for pleading, although the Plaintiff had sufficiently been given the opportunity to assert and prove it after receipt of the Defendants’ petition of appeal and the date for pleading, and on the first day for pleading, the Plaintiff filed an application for resumption of pleadings after the closing