A. On February 2, 2006, K, D, and I purchased a 45,818 square meters of forest AE and its lot of land in Yanyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun and entered into a partnership business agreement with the purport that they will purchase a new building and sell the building in lots and have divided the profits therefrom, and established the defendant on March 8, 2006 for the execution of the above partnership business.

B. At the time of the establishment of the Defendant, the shareholders of E (2,00 shares), net G (1,00 shares, death of July 5, 2015), H (1,00 shares), L (1,00 shares, and M (1,00 shares, 1,00 shares, hereinafter “L”), the representative director and directors of E, in-house directors and directors were listed as L, while in-house directors, E, in-house directors were listed as L. The spouse of D’s East F, in-house G, in-house spouse of D, in-house spouse of H, and in-house spouse of K.

In addition, the plaintiff A (nameJ before the opening of the name) shall be his father and the plaintiff B shall be punished by K.

C. D and net G have been practically operating the Defendant, on the other hand, I withdrawn from the above-mentioned partnership around the beginning of 2008.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, 5 through 12, and 50 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap witness AK's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff A lent KRW 159,242,200 to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff A, while the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and the defendant asserts that the money deposited in the name of the plaintiff A is money invested by K in the defendant.

B. Determination 1) A’s No. 3 and No. 4 (a performance note and Defendant’s name are printed, and there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image is based on the Defendant’s seal, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established.

Although the defendant has a defense to the effect that the above performance angle was forged by K, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, rather, according to the testimony of AK by the witness at the trial, D and net G, which actually operated the defendant.