1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase a vessel owned by the Defendant (C, September 2010, January 53t, 201; hereinafter “instant vessel”) at KRW 39,00,000 (hereinafter “instant purchase”) and determined the delivery date as September 3, 2016; and the Defendant registered the instant vessel as a fishing vessel and obtained a coastal fishing permit.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, through the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name, additionally remitted KRW 1,00,000,000 to the Defendant for the purpose of purchasing and installing the fishing detection machine in addition to the purchase price of the instant vessel, in addition to the purchase price of the instant vessel, as KRW 40,000,000,000, on June 15, 2016.

the transfer was made.

C. On or after September 3, 2016, the Defendant did not deliver the instant vessel to the Plaintiff. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as a crime of fraud on the ground that the Defendant, while having no intent or ability to sell the vessel to the Plaintiff, was unaware of the Plaintiff.

On June 29, 2017, the prosecutor of the original District Prosecutors' Office was prosecuted for fraud.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant recognized that the plaintiff registered the ship of this case as a fishing vessel or violated the obligation to obtain a fishery permit as stipulated in the sales contract of this case, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case and declared his intention to cancel the sale of this case for the above reasons of the defendant's default.

Therefore, the Defendant paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant upon restitution to the Plaintiff as well as KRW 40,000,000 after the Plaintiff paid the said KRW 40,000 to the Defendant, as sought by the Plaintiff, from September 4, 2016, which is the day following the date on which the Defendant agreed to deliver the instant vessel as a cycle of delivery to the Plaintiff.