1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The plaintiff A operates a general restaurant business in the name of "E" in Gangwon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D, and the plaintiff B operates a gas station in the same address with the trade name of "Friju station". The defendant is the representative director of G company.

B. On January 27, 2016, G Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with Sknice Co., Ltd. and the construction cost of the construction amounting to KRW 1.510 million with a view to expanding a ice-oriented factory near the said rest area and the gas station located in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gun. Some of the above construction works (factory 1st floor toilets, office repair works, board works, etc., hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. From April 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs provided the Plaintiff with food, and the Plaintiff B provided the oil, respectively, to those who work at the construction site of the instant case.

In addition, since July 4, 2016, Plaintiff B provided people with an implied accommodation. D.

Plaintiff

A filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of fraud, stating that “The Defendant would provide the Plaintiffs with the food cost, oil cost, and accommodation cost, and pay them each month by inserting oil into a week,” and that it would have obtained from the Plaintiffs the food cost, the oil cost, and the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the accommodation cost.”

E. On March 22, 2017, the prosecutor of the Youngcheon District Prosecutor’s Office in the Chuncheon District Prosecutors’ Office stated that “I would have received money from the defendant and calculate food and accommodation expenses to the plaintiffs,” and on March 22, 2017, it appears that I would have decided I would have paid food and accommodation expenses to the plaintiffs, if I paid food and accommodation expenses, etc. to I. However, since the settlement of construction expenses between the defendant and I is not adjusted, it cannot be readily concluded that there was the intent of defraudation to the defendant.”