1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

around May 2005, the Plaintiff operated the main point of “G” in the Plaintiff’s wife’s name, and around August 2005, the main point of “H”. The Defendant was in charge of business at each of the above main points.

The plaintiff discontinued "G" on November 2005, but failed to recover the investment fund.

On December 7, 2005, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 15,600,000 from a bank in cash, KRW 143,000,000 on December 9, 2005, and KRW 40,000 on December 29, 2005.

Each of the above withdrawals and the total of KRW 1,400,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff possessed, were used as the lease deposit and the interior cost at the main point of “I”.

(hereinafter the above KRW 200,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant money”). The Defendant was in charge of business in the above “I”.

On February 2, 2006 to March 2, 2006, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to provide that “In preparation for the tax investigation, a loan certificate under the name of the Defendant is required,” and the Defendant borrowed KRW 200,000,000 (the interior cost of KRW 100,000,000) from the obligee, the obligor, the Defendant, and the content of the tax investigation,” interest-free interest, the blank for the due date, and the blank for the date of the preparation (the copy of this case hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate”).

Around December 2010, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant with the content that “The Defendant received KRW 200,000,000,000, in total, from the Plaintiff on December 15, 2005, under the pretext of the expenses, etc. incurred in operating “I” from the Plaintiff, even though he did not have an intention or ability to repay the Plaintiff on or around December 7, 2005, including the expenses, etc.

On the other hand, the police issued a non-prosecution disposition on October 27, 2010 on the ground that “The authenticity of the instant loan certificate is doubtful.” The prosecutor sent the instant case to the prosecutor’s office on the grounds that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 200,000,000 according to the loan certificate and the details of bank transactions, but it is recognized that the Defendant borrowed KRW 200,00,000.”

hereinafter “Investigation of this case”.