1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In around 2011, the Defendant granted C the five million won worth of household checks issued by the Defendant as a new construction price for the building.

Accordingly, on April 21, 201, C requested the Plaintiff to discount the above household check, and the Plaintiff received five copies of the above household check and paid 24 million won to C after deducting advance interest from the face value of the above household check.

Although the Plaintiff intended to suggest the above coefficient table to be paid at the date of payment (on June 1, 2011 and July 18, 2011), the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant exchange the said household check with cash if C is waiting for the payment of the same amount, and delayed the presentation of payment on May 8, 2013, but the payment was refused due to default.

B. If so, the defendant issued the above coefficient table to be returned to C, which is a construction business operator, as a result of the new construction of his own building, and ordered C to use it at a discount from the plaintiff and use it as the cost of new construction of his own building. Thus, the defendant ultimately asserts that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount of the above household check issued, since he got profits from his occupational breach of trust or fraud, which is the bona fide purchaser of the above household check, by taking advantage of the profits equivalent to the face value of the household check.

2. We examine the judgment case, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 through 7, and Gap evidence Nos. 8, and the defendant issued the defendant's provisional proof Nos. 1 to C as the payment for the new construction cost of his building.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had C use the coefficient mark at the discount from the Plaintiff as the cost of constructing a new building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion.