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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “F” in Part 9 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “E”, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court under Part 5, 10.

2. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a false conspiracy and thus null and void, on the premise that the instant contract is valid, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking restitution in accordance with the cancellation of the contract is unreasonable.

In order to establish a false conspiracy, there is a difference between the truth and the indication of the declaration of intention and the agreement with the other party as to the inconsistency. The evidence alone, which is required by the above, is insufficient to recognize that the original and the defendant knew that the processing transaction in this case was conducted without the actual transaction relationship, and that there was a mutual collusion with the other party. The defendant's assertion against this is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(Decree) Even if the contract of this case is null and void as alleged by the defendant, in principle, the defendant must return the price of the goods which he received in advance from the plaintiff in accordance with the contract of this case as unjust enrichment, so the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit). In addition, the defendant does not have any participation in the fraud of C, nor did he obtain any particular profit, and only was used in the fraud of C, and the plaintiff was against the defendant