1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract between B and B, which was known by the Defendant’s introduction, with the content that the Plaintiff shall produce and supply the goods upon placing an order to the Plaintiff, but the goods price shall be paid at the 15th day of each month and the last day of each month (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

B. The Plaintiff supplied 68,080,000 won in total as ordered by B from October 31, 2012 to November 12, 2012. However, even though the payment date has not been completed at all by B, the Plaintiff did not receive the said new payment from B.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff complained of the following facts: “B and the Defendant conspired with the Plaintiff, without any intent or ability to pay the price on the date of the promise, and obtained it by deceiving KRW 68,080,000 on the said date.” On June 25, 2013, B was prosecuted by fraud; on the other hand, the Defendant was subject to a disposition that was not suspected of having committed fraud in collusion with B on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant committed the crime of fraud.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's testimony of party witness B, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion was that the defendant found the plaintiff before entering into the supply contract of this case and called the production and business director of the new importer company that he operated. At the time of entering into the supply contract of this case, the plaintiff had experienced his opinion on the date of payment by accompanying the plaintiff to B, and brought part of the new contract that the plaintiff supplied to B. The defendant introduced B to the plaintiff even though he knew that B was unable to settle the transaction price of KRW 80 million in the new transaction between B and China, and the defendant agreed to receive the price of KRW 10 million per new contract delivered by the plaintiff from B. In light of the above, the defendant agreed to receive the price of KRW 1,00 per each new contract delivered by the plaintiff from B.