beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The E and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) are corporations for alternative fuel manufacture and sales business, and related persons including G, who are actual operators of E, etc. were convicted of violating the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Unauthorized Receipt of Fuel Oil (hereinafter “E”) in relation to the business of manufacturing and selling e, etc. fuel oil.
B. On November 21, 2008, the Defendant was convicted of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising, etc., on the ground that “the Defendant conspired with G as the head of headquarters, such as E, in connection with the business of manufacturing and selling fuel oil for e, etc., by deceiving investors from May 15, 2007 to April 22, 2008,” as related persons of E, the Defendant was convicted of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising, etc.
C. When G et al. were punished as above, part of the related parties of E et al. established D (hereinafter “D”) for the purpose of manufacturing and selling alternative fuel and merged D with C, H, I, and J as affiliates of E et al. for the purpose of continuing investment fund solicitation business in D, and decided to sell convertible bonds issued by C et al.
From August 19, 2008, the Defendant, as the head of D's Chang National Branch Headquarters, served as D's auditor from August 19, 2008. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,000,000 on July 11, 2008 as the Defendant's name account, and KRW 13,500,000 on March 13, 2009 as the Defendant's name account, respectively.
E. On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant with an investigative agency as a crime of fraud. The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months in the court of first instance and for 2 years in the suspension of execution (the Changwon District Court Decision 2012Da1305), but the Defendant appealed against this, and the appellate court reversed the judgment of the first instance on May 29, 2014 on the ground that there is no proof of crime.