beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) under the terms “50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, November 12, 2014 to November 11, 2016,” and “special agreement terms: (a) on January 3, 2012, the lease agreement was concluded between the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) and the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). At the time of the said lease agreement, the Defendant participated as a representative of the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant lease”).
B. From October 22, 2014 to November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50,000,000 to a passbook in the name of Nonparty Company in the name of Nonparty Company three times.
C. The instant building was under a compulsory auction procedure for real estate auction to Incheon District Court E, and Nonparty F completed the registration of ownership transfer due to a compulsory auction on June 2, 2016 by the Incheon District Court No. 151410, which was received on June 2, 2016.
The plaintiff filed a complaint with the non-party G and the defendant, who is the actual operator of the non-party company, against the crime of fraud that "the plaintiff conspireds with the non-party company, by deceiving the plaintiff, and by deceiving the plaintiff 50,000,000 won from the plaintiff." The prosecutor belonging to the Incheon District Prosecutor's Office prosecuted G and the defendant on July 21, 2016, but the Incheon District Court did not have any direct evidence that the plaintiff conspiredd with G on July 18, 2017 with the non-party company as the head of 4431,8505 (merged). However, the situation that the lease contract was concluded by the agent upon the request of G and H requested the return of the deposit amount and H did not carry out the contract properly, and therefore, H had the head of the Tong in the name of the non-party company and the fact that there was a monetary transaction between G and I. The above circumstance alone is that the defendant was aware of the non-party company at the time of concluding the above lease contract.