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.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 1 (including additional numbers), and witness C's testimony of the first instance trial witness C.

C around October 202, 2002, the F apartment council of occupants' representatives decided to lease the “Egyna” located in D as the deposit amount of KRW 100 million, and concluded a service contract with those who wish to provide credit services, etc., and received the total amount of KRW 135 million and paid KRW 100 million as the deposit money to the F apartment apartment council of occupants' representatives.

B. When the sum of rent and water rent of KRW 60,000,000 was overdue due to rain or business depression, C transferred the above friendship or operating right to G on or around September 2003 under the condition that G subrogated the above overdue rent, etc.

G employed the Defendant, who is a Dong Twitter employee, as the Defendant’s husband, H as the boiler engineer, and operated the said Ma.

C. On June 15, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a new service contract with C for a deposit of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant service contract”) and paid KRW 20 million to C.

C used the above 20 million won in the return of deposit to the previous tax service contractor.

On November 2004, the F apartment council of occupants' representatives terminated the above-mentioned friendship or the lease contract with C on the grounds of the rent delay, and the Plaintiff, which no longer became unable to provide the services, filed a criminal complaint against C, G, Defendant, and H on the charge of fraud.

As a result, C was sentenced to imprisonment on April 5, 2007 by the District Court of Jung-gu, five months of probation, one year of probation (the above court case No. 2006No1336), G and the defendant were subject to a disposition of suspicion from the District Court of Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office.

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the instant service agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff by lending C’s name while operating E-Saina along with G.