1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 and KRW 22,00,000 among them, Defendant B shall be from August 15, 2013 to September 30, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the husband of the E, Defendant D is the father of the E, Defendant C is the husband of Defendant D, Defendant D and C’s husband, Defendant D and C’s husband.

B. Defendant B was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on August 14, 2014 for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (hereinafter “the tort in this case”) with the following contents as to E (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gohap1215, 1446, 148 (Merger), and 148)), and Defendant B appealed against this, and the appellate court reversed the judgment of the first instance on December 4, 2014 and sentenced to four years of imprisonment (Seoul High Court 2014No2554), and Defendant B appealed but dismissed the appeal.

On November 19, 2009, the Defendant called “G” to the victim at the office of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) located in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu (hereinafter “Seoul”) and called “G” to the account manager at G, a modern elevator partner. G receives electronic bills from Hyundai Elevator. Since electronic bills have to be settled by the maturity date, G has raised funds for the company’s operation by discounting bills and immediately changing bills to cash to ordinary pre-paid bond business operators. Furthermore, when lending money to the account holder, at the same time, the payment of discounted bills can be made in excess of the discounted bills and the discounted bills. The method is to deposit money borrowed from the account holder at the discount of electronic bills and keep the electronic bills in custody, the payment of the principal and interest of the bills borrowed from the bills is to be made on a deposit basis of the discounted bills, and the payment of the bills is to be made on a loan to the account of the maturity date of the electronic bills.”

However, in fact G was engaged in all cash transactions with the modern elevator at the time, and is not engaged in the transaction of bills, so the electronic bill did not exist, so the defendant is willing to pay the money even if he borrowed money from the victim.