1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) the 3rd 8th 8th h of the judgment of the first instance as Seoul Western District Court; (b) the 484th h of the table 6 and 9 as “Seoul Western District Court”; (c) the 4th h of the 8th h of the hive as “Seoul Western District Court”; (d) the 352th h of the 10th h of the hive as “Seoul Western District Court”; and (e) the 5th h of the 5th h were sentenced as “353”; and (e) the said judgment was dismissed on April 7, 2017 and became final and conclusive as is (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1832).” Thus, this is identical to the part of the facts of recognition as of 1.”

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned shall seek damages equivalent to KRW 176,885,748 of each transaction price of this case caused by the act of deceitation against the defendant.

In regard to this, the Defendant, on the ground that the above transaction amount was appropriated for the balance of the goods unpaid in spring/Y 2012, or the Plaintiff already received all the goods equivalent to the above transaction amount, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff.

In doing so, the plaintiff could not be deemed to have suffered any loss from it.

B. In full view of all the following facts and circumstances found in Gap evidence Nos. 2-7, Eul evidence Nos. 9-14, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 31, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant did not think that even if he/she received the payment from the plaintiff, he/she will transfer the payment in full to Italy company, a supplier of the land. Even if he/she transfers a part of the payment to a Italy company, he/she did not think the plaintiff that he/she did not have any intention or ability to supply the product to the plaintiff as ordered by the plaintiff, even though he/she did not think that he/she would have any intention or ability to supply the product as ordered by the plaintiff as ordered, from December 8, 2011 to July 11, 2012, he/she deceiving Quak Don (this case’s 1-3, 6, 9 transaction), and the product no. 84, 5, and Pis.