1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Facts constituting the offense of the first instance judgment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Co-defendant B of the first instance trial is the father of Defendant C.

B. On December 24, 2015, Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial was indicted as a crime of fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of falsified documents, and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor on October 7, 2016 in the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Ma772). On October 7, 2016, Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial appealed, but the appeal was dismissed in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016No2914, which became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff's assertion that Defendant C participated in the crime of fraud by the co-defendant B of the first instance trial against the plaintiff, and used 5 million won out of the amount obtained by the co-defendant B of the first instance trial by taking advantage of the fraudulent amount acquired by the co-defendant B of the first instance trial, the above amount is liable to compensate for the tort

B. In full view of all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, Defendant C participated in the fraud of Defendant C Co-Defendant B in the first instance trial.

In relation to the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize unjust enrichment of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant C is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

However, since the list of crimes attached to this judgment is omitted after the facts constituting the crime of the first instance, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 211(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as stated in paragraph (3).