1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from December 17, 2017 to October 23, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Defendant was indicted against the Plaintiff for committing the following fraudulent acts (hereinafter “instant illegal acts”), and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for August 28, 2018, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for up to 6 months at the appellate court that commenced the Defendant’s appeal, and thereafter sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for up to 6 months at the appellate court that commenced the Defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of the said appellate court became final and conclusive around that time.

The defendant (the defendant, hereinafter the same shall apply) is the head of the field office of the dispute resolution committee, which is a construction company, and the victim A (the plaintiff, hereinafter the same shall apply) is the staff of the dispute resolution

On September 13, 2012, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. shall carry out the construction project with joint supply and repair under the condition that the extension and repair works of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan E Hotel shall be "total construction cost of KRW 1.4 billion and the date of completion of the construction," and the defendant, in the side of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the defendant has been in charge of the said construction works in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and the victim has been in charge of the said construction in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on November 7, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the defendant is able to first lend the construction cost to the owner F and pay the completed portion after receiving the construction cost to the owner F. However, the F will not lend the money to the owner of the building without the person related to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which is included, so it is possible to make a loan with a joint name and joint loan.

The phrase “the meaning was false.”

However, the defendant borrowed money from F and thought that most of the money was used for personal purposes, such as repayment of debts, not construction expenses, and that there was no particular property or income in bad credit standing.

It was difficult to finance the existing contract price obligations, and even if the above hotel has received the progress payment for the above hotel construction, it did not think that it will be used in the repayment of the above loan, and even if it borrowed money from F in the joint name with the victim, it would be possible to repay it.