1. Of the lower judgment, KRW 37,630,00 against the Defendant and 5% per annum from October 14, 2010 to May 1, 2015.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Based on the evidence submitted until the closing of arguments at the trial court, the court determines whether the assertion of facts is true by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, and as long as such recognition of facts goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court of final appeal is bound by the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court (Articles 202 and 432 of the Civil Procedure Act). Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, as stated in its reasoning, whether the subject of the transfer/acquisition contract was specified as a sale right in H and four names is difficult to readily conclude it in light of the language of the transfer/acquisition contract (Evidence 1-1) or the contents of the first instance judgment related to the relevant criminal

However, the verdict of innocence on the ground that there is no proof of a crime in the criminal trial means that there is no proof to exclude a reasonable doubt about the facts charged, and it does not mean that the absence of the facts charged is proved. Therefore, even if responsibility based on factual relations is based, civil liability and criminal liability should be examined separately

In this case, even after examining the evidence submitted by the time of the closing of argument in the lower court, there is no objective evidence that clearly conflicts with the lower court’s fact-finding. Thus, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s above fact-finding exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was a violation of the law in its fact-finding, and there is also a ground of appeal that the court below violated the duty of explanation or failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations in light of the records.