The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On July 14, 2011, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of remanding the case (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da52601 Decided the case in which the Defendant filed against the Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Asset Trust”) with respect to the revocation of the act (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da52601 Decided the case), and the Defendant was immediately informed of the above fact by a certified electronic broker I, and I would like to know the victim of the above fact.

On the other hand, the Defendant received the remaining lease deposit from the injured party with the knowledge that the injured party was sentenced to the judgment of reversal by the Supreme Court, and thus, the Defendant did not deceive the injured party as stated in the judgment of the court below, and did not have the intention of defraudation.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a fiduciary duty and duty in good faith in property transaction. Among them, deception by passive act refers to a person subject to duty of disclosure under law does not inform the other party of the fact despite being involved in a certain fact. If it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of the fact in light of the empirical rule of general transaction, if the other party would have been aware of the fact, it is legally obligated to notify the fact in light of the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). (b) Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, even if the defendant received the balance of the lease deposit from the injured party, the victim should be informed of the fact that the other party would not be able to use the officetels or return the deposit properly.