1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. C, even if receiving money from the Plaintiff, did not have the intent or ability to carry out the construction of scrap metal removal and removal, on December 2, 2010, concluded that “In the office of the new site of the new apartment construction site located in Asan-si, Asan-si, the Plaintiff would immediately resume the new apartment construction work, which had been interrupted, to the extent that it was the president of the new apartment construction site office located in Asan-si, Inc., and was scheduled to immediately resume the new apartment construction work. The construction of the above apartment unit of KRW 273 million was removed and the collection of scrap metal was ordered to demand KRW 30 million as the down payment for the collection of scrap metal.”

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million in total in the account under the Defendant’s name designated by C as the down payment for scrap metal collection, as well as KRW 10 million on December 2, 2010, and KRW 20 million on December 6, 2010.

C. C above:

On August 19, 2014, the criminal facts, such as the statements, were prosecuted as a crime of fraud, and the conviction was rendered on August 19, 2014.

(The grounds for recognition) 1 and 2 evidence A, the purport of the entire pleadings, as well as the purport of the whole pleadings, of the Chuncheon District Court's original District Court's 2014dan466.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant actively participated in the above illegal acts of C, and thus, C and the plaintiff are jointly and severally liable to pay damages of KRW 20 million based on the illegal acts and damages for delay.

B. The fact that C received money from the Defendant’s account is as seen earlier, and according to the statement of passbook transaction attached to Gap’s certificate No. 3, the Defendant deposited KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on December 30, 201.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant involved in the illegal act of Gap and Eul evidence No. 3 merely by itself, and there is no evidence to recognize it differently.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant participated in C's tort is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.