1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 2, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had no intention or ability to invest KRW 450 million from the beginning, and if the Defendant did not bear KRW 450 million from the beginning without having intention or capacity to invest KRW 450 million in the Plaintiff, the Defendant deceiving the Plaintiff as if he had no intention to work with the Defendant and the Plaintiff would bear KRW 450 million in its opening cost, and that is in its possession from the Plaintiff.

6.12. From December 199 to the same year.

7. Until December 25, 200, a total of KRW 150 million was provided on three occasions and acquired by fraud.

In addition, the defendant promised to return the invested money to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 150 million equivalent to the above investment amount as damages for the above tort, or to pay KRW 150 million invested by the Plaintiff according to the return agreement.

2. Determination:

A. First, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, acquired the Plaintiff’s 150 million won by deceiving the Plaintiff, solely with the descriptions of the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 regarding the claim for damages arising from the tort, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 1 through 5, the prosecutor of the Incheon District Court prosecuted the defendant on June 17, 2015, "if the defendant does not bear the above money without the intention or ability to invest KRW 450 million in the expenses of opening the business with the defendant, he/she would bear the above money as if he/she did not have any intention or ability to do so with the defendant, and he/she would receive KRW 150 million from the plaintiff as if he/she did not have any intention to do so." However, the above court sentenced the defendant not guilty on November 26, 2015, and the prosecutor appealed, but the above court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal on May 25, 2016 (the above court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal) and the prosecutor again appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8964 delivered on July 1, 2016.