1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's defendant made a false statement that when the President and the prosecutor make an investment in a national business, the principal will also be guaranteed and that the six times the profit can be realized, he shall obtain a total of 70 million won from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 70 million and delay damages.

The defendant only delivered the plaintiff's investment money to E/F related to the above business at the plaintiff's request to participate in the investment while investing in the C platform business and D, and the defendant also did not deceiving the plaintiff, and is merely a fraud victim such as F.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of no dispute between the parties or the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the fact that the Plaintiff operating the inspection of G company paid the Defendant, who is the believers of the inspection, a total of KRW 10 million on August 17, 2015 through the account in the name of H, ASEAN, i.e., the Plaintiff, who is the inspector of the inspection, KRW 70 million on May 18, 2015, and KRW 50 million on September 24, 2015 can be acknowledged.

However, the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 4, 1, and 4 were revealed by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1 to 4, i.e., the following circumstances: ① the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on May 17, 2015 and May 18, 2015, and deposited KRW 50 million to E; ② there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant used it individually; ② the F was convicted of having committed a criminal act, such as fraud and violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission; and the Defendant participated in the above criminal act.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff with knowledge of such circumstance, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries in the evidence Nos. 4 through 9 alone by deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.