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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an architect who operates the architect office F in the name of "F of the architect office," and the Defendant was a person who promoted the new construction and sale business of apartment-type factories in Busan Metropolitan City G around 2016.

B. On October 2016, the Defendant requested D, who runs the financial consulting business, to provide a PF loan necessary for the above business, and D, who requested D, to prepare apartment-type factory planning drawings (tentative drawings) on the land in the Gangseo-gu Busan (hereinafter “C”) and E (hereinafter “E”) necessary for promoting the PF loan, and the Plaintiff prepared and delivered the planning drawings of the above land to D.

C. After receiving the above planning drawing from D, the Defendant met with the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016, and the Plaintiff completed the preparation of the apartment-type shop drawing on land around November 15, 2016 and delivered the said implementation drawing to D.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on charges of fraud that “the Defendant, who did not have the intent or ability to pay the design cost, prepared the design drawing of the factory on the land of KRW 50,518,906, and had the Plaintiff prepare the design drawing of the land of KRW 50,000,00,000, and acquired property benefits by failing to pay the design cost of KRW 60,518,906” (Seoul District Court Decision 2017No. 17418). On November 29, 2017, the public prosecutor in charge issued a disposition without suspicion on the grounds that “the fact that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to prepare the design drawing of the oral fixed type, but it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent by deception,” on the grounds that “the Defendant is not suspected of having received the design drawing of the land of KRW

(hereinafter referred to as “relevant criminal case”). 【The ground for recognition” does not have any dispute, Gap’s statements or images as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8 through 11, Eul’s evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul’s testimony as witness of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is newly constructed on and around November 7, 2016 between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on land C.