1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C around May 2018, around 2018, written a loan certificate to the Plaintiff, “C shall receive an investment from the Plaintiff, but shall not collect the investment amount properly, and shall make the payment in writing. It shall lend KRW 107,600,000 per day to the Plaintiff as of March 31, 2018, and the date of repayment shall be determined later and shall be repaid thereafter. The interest shall be repaid later through consultation.”

B. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant and C to the effect that “The Defendant and C acquired KRW 16.68 million in total from the Plaintiff to November 14, 2016, under the name of the purchase price of D shopping mall sales right, etc.” in collusion with the Defendant and C.

C. On November 27, 2018, public prosecutor E of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor E of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office accused the Plaintiff that “C could not have any intent or ability to allow the Plaintiff to purchase the right to move into the D shopping mall or apartment complex, and that he/she received a total of KRW 16.68 million from the Plaintiff from the first policeman of April 2013 to November 14, 2016, and acquired it by fraud” against the Defendant on the same day, the Defendant was subject to a disposition without suspicion (defensive of evidence) on the grounds that “the lack of evidence to prove that the Defendant participated in the crime committed by C” was insufficient.

[Reasons for Recognition - Unsatisfy, Evidence A 2, each entry of Evidence B Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that he conspired with C to purchase apartment and commercial building occupancy rights according to D development projects by deceiving the plaintiff to purchase apartment and commercial building occupancy rights according to D development projects, and acquired a total of KRW 107,60,000 from the plaintiff, so the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to compensate the plaintiff for KRW 107,60,000.

B. In full view of whether the Defendant participated in the Defendant’s crime, whether there was a dispute between the parties, or whether there was a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, and the Defendant’s statement in the evidence No. 1, the entire purport of the argument is as follows.