The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 17, 2016 to September 18, 2020, and thereafter.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The facts under recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, either Party A 1 and 2 (including paper numbers).

1) Around November 17, 2016, the Defendant proposed an investment to the effect that, as an operator of the business entity called “C” which was carried on with business consulting, etc. for the purpose of business, the Defendant would make an investment to the Plaintiff, stating that “on the part of conducting business, such as purchase and repair of accident vehicles, and sale of real estate.” In investing money, the Defendant would guarantee the principal and pay 3-5% interest per month.” However, the above business entity operated by the Defendant was in a situation where there was no way to obtain sufficient profits, such as a specific business plan. However, even if the Plaintiff received the investment money from the Plaintiff, there was no intent or ability to pay the said principal and interest. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff did not have the intent or ability to pay the said principal and interest to the Defendant on the part of the investment deposit (hereinafter “instant investment deposit”).

2) The Defendant, like the foregoing paragraph 1, was convicted of imprisonment due to fraud by deceiving the Plaintiff and deceiving the investment funds of this case (Seoul Central District Court 2017No435, 2018No956). The said conviction became final and conclusive August 21, 2018.B. Even if a judgment is not binding on the fact-finding in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive as to the same fact-finding is deemed to constitute a valuable evidentiary material, barring any special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da31453, Jan. 15, 1993).

When considering the facts acknowledged in the above relevant legal principles, the defendant is guilty of fraud by deceiving the plaintiff.