1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2017, the Defendant suggested that “Around Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Plaintiff owned a 1/2 share of the Plaintiff, the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with all trusting and trusting the Plaintiff, who is well aware of the issue on which the right to collateral security was established in the name of D with respect to the 1,256,196 square meters of forest C, Ulsan-gun, the Plaintiff owned a 1/2 share of the Plaintiff.”

Accordingly, on July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1,407,200 to the certified judicial scrivener E introduced by the Defendant for the purpose of preparing a written complaint, etc. for the cancellation of the above right to collateral security registration. On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1,200,000 to the Defendant for the purpose of receiving expenses, etc. for the resolution of the above case.

B. On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the racing police station to the effect that “the Defendant would make the Plaintiff win the lawsuit without conditions through a certified judicial scrivener known to him, and mediated the certified judicial scrivener, and received 1,200,000 won at the expense of receiving the fees. If the Defendant’s unlawful nature is thoroughly examined and the crime is revealed, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the effect that “if the crime is discovered, the Defendant would be punished with severe punishment,” and accordingly, the investigation by the investigative agency on suspicion, etc. of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act was initiated.

Since then, on March 13, 2018, the judicial police officer of the racing police station sent the defendant to the head of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office and the head of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office.

C. On March 31, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a mobile phone text message, “I am a party to the instant text message, regardless of prosecution prosecution,” (hereinafter “instant text message”).

However, the plaintiff did not respond to the defendant. D.

On June 25, 2018, the public prosecutor of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office issued a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of the defendant's violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim