1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. 원고 주장 원고는 2013. 12.경 평소 안면이 있던 C(공동피고였으나 2015. 8. 12. 이 사건 제1차 변론기일에서 원고의 청구에 대하여 모두 ‘청구인락’하였다)으로부터 ‘법원에서 암암리에 직원들에게 경매물건 나오는 것이 있는데 이걸 잡으면 큰 돈을 벌 수 있다. 나도 그렇게 해서 건물까지 샀다. 지금 진주법원에 경매물건 좋은 것이 나왔으니 대출을 받아서라도 법원 직원인 피고 명의 계좌로 돈을 보내라’는 취지의 말을 들었다.

Accordingly, on December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 35 million to the Defendant’s name account known by C, and KRW 85 million to the sum of KRW 5 million on January 9, 2014.

The defendant withdrawn 85 million won and delivered it to C, and C used all the above money for stock investment.

C, despite the intention of using the said money for stock investment from the beginning, the Plaintiff was deceiving the Plaintiff as if it would have been left with the acquisition of auction goods, and the Defendant was not a court employee as his wife, but took part in C’s aforementioned crime, such as receiving remittance of the said money and delivering it to C, even though he was aware of the above crime.

Therefore, as joint tortfeasor, the defendant is obligated to pay 85 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff together with C.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, 1-1, 2-2, and 1-2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that C made the Plaintiff make the Plaintiff make a false statement and wired KRW 85 million to an account under the name of the Defendant.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspired with C to commit a fraud by committing a crime against the Plaintiff, or was involved in the act, such as providing a passbook or delivering a withdrawal of money, knowing the above crime, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The defendant shall be the mother who has been divorced from his father for a long time, and shall be C.