beta
Text
1. As to KRW 94,00,000 and KRW 84,000 among them, the Defendant shall annually year from December 18, 2018 to January 12, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant concealed the father’s father’s father’s father’s son from around May 2014, as if he were on the premise of marriage with the Plaintiff.
B. Even if the Defendant borrowed money with trust in the above teaching relationship, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money, but did not have the intent or ability to repay the money, and the Plaintiff on March 2017, 2017, “The Defendant is importing and selling the fishery products in a foreign country, and the sales of processed fishery products by directly processing the fishery products can create more profits.
In Masan, the land owner, who is aware of in Masan, operated a fishery product processing factory, and the factory was low on a sudden basis, and the factory was accused of "to return 50 million won after one week from the loan of the down payment cost for the factory takeover."
The Plaintiff, which falls under the said deceptive act, delivered to the Defendant a total of 89 million won from March 9, 2017 to September 22, 2017, as the borrowed money.
(c)
The Defendant was indicted for fraud, etc., which includes the aforementioned deception, and was sentenced to four years in Busan District Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 4029 Decided, etc., and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment. The Defendant accepted the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing in the same court as the appellate court, 2019No 3999, and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment.
【Unfounded Grounds for Recognition】 Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including various numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 84,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff, which was not repaid out of KRW 89,00,000, which was acquired by deception.
B. In addition, the Defendant’s deception was made through the method of obtaining the Plaintiff’s trust by deceiving the fact that he/she was the father of his/her father during a considerable period of time and deceivings with the Plaintiff on the premise of marriage. It is obvious that the Plaintiff suffered irrecoverable mental damage due to such property damage.
And the defendant's deception.