1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The plaintiff's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes as the reason for appeal in this court as the reason for appeal under paragraph (2), and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff et al. filed a claim for damages against the plaintiff et al. by asserting the damage caused by the fraud in the casino of this case, but the court of first instance accepted some amount within the scope of the damage amount finalized in the criminal case and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claim, and the above judgment was finalized through the appellate court.

The judgment of the court of first instance in this case recognized that "the plaintiff provided the defendant with chips equivalent to the loan amount of this case for the purpose of gambling fraud or recovered chips equivalent to the loan amount of this case through fraud gambling" is unfair since it violates the res judicata of the final and conclusive civil judgment.

Judgment

The Defendant prepared five copies of the loan certificate of KRW 400,00,000 in total amount of principal from June 30, 2012 to July 1, 2012, and used it in the instant casino after obtaining the chips equivalent to the above loan amount from the Plaintiff, as seen earlier. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 9, 15, and 16 (including the virtual number), the Defendant asserted that the 14 persons, including the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, suffered damages from totaling KRW 2,127,814,00 in total on 23 occasions from May 9, 2012 to July 22, 2012, and the court of first instance claimed that the Defendant sustained damages from the said casino ( Daegu District Court 2015hap207017) in the criminal case.