1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Co-defendant B of the first instance trial, on June 26, 2013, was sentenced to a conviction of 6 months and 2 years of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, on the following grounds: (a) Co-defendant B of the Seoul Southern District Court (2012Gohap 4681 Fraud) stated in the false statement that “If D and the Plaintiff jointly invest KRW 30 million in operating capital, the Plaintiff would have earned profits from selling the scrap metal and the scrap metal generated from the removal of the Hanyang apartment boiler boiler removal work in the Hanyangdong-dong, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government into the Defendant’s agricultural bank account.” (b) received KRW 30 million from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 4 and 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On July 6, 201, the Defendant and the her husband, who jointly deceptioned, borrowed 30 million won from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account by receiving KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, “The replacement of the central heating boiler from the Hanyang apartment located in the Han-dong, Dobong-gu, Seoul, would take place a large amount of benefit.” 2) The Defendant was aware that as long as B created a passbook and delivered the passbook to B while being aware that he was a bad credit holder, the damage may be caused to the third party who is unaware of the fact, and the intention that he would be responsible for the result of using the passbook is expressed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a bona fide third party pursuant to Articles 107 and 109 of the Civil Act, cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Determination B and D jointly deceptioned the Plaintiff and received KRW 30 million by deceiving the Plaintiff, and as a result, it can be recognized that B obtained a final judgment of conviction of fraud. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant participated in B’s fraudulent act, such as deceiving the Plaintiff or aiding and abetting B’s fraudulent act jointly with B, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.