beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 24, 2015, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant on the charge of fraud that, “Around July 2012, the Plaintiff proposed to the Defendant, who was not experienced in the tugboat business, and received from the Defendant the payment of KRW 200 million for the purchase, delivery, registration, etc. of the instant vessel, and acquired the instant vessel from the Defendant, and that, at around October 2012, the purchase price was KRW 135 million (in that process, the Plaintiff, the buyer (the Defendant’s wife), and the sales price was KRW 200 million, but the purchase price was in fact KRW 135 million, which was higher than that of the Plaintiff, the buyer (the Defendant’s wife), and the purchase price was KRW 200,000,000,000,000, which was the difference.”
(B) Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office No. 21953, 2015, hereinafter referred to as "the complaint of this case").
Since then, the prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office prosecuted the plaintiff as Busan District Court 2015Da53777 on the charge of fraud that the plaintiff acquired 65 million won from the defendant, and the above court acquitted the plaintiff on July 21, 2016.
Therefore, the prosecutor appealed as Busan District Court 2016No3032, but the above court sentenced the dismissal of the appeal on February 15, 2017. The prosecutor appealed as the Supreme Court 2017Do4083 and appealed again on May 30, 2017, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of acquittal of the plaintiff on May 30, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant criminal trial,” in total of the above criminal trials received by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant criminal trial”), [based on recognition], entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, 6, 7, 10 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. On March 24, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the former owner D purchased a total tonnage of 44 tons E (the instant vessel (hereinafter “instant vessel”) from the former owner D at KRW 135 million, and the Defendant.