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

A. Since May 28, 1997, the Plaintiff and E shared 1/2 shares of each of the instant real estate.

B. As to the whole real estate of this case, the Plaintiff and E, the secured debt amount of KRW 400 million, and the secured debt amount of KRW 700 million against the Plaintiff’s share among the real estate of this case, the secured debt amount of KRW 700 million against the Plaintiff, and the secured debt amount of KRW 300 million against Defendant C, respectively.

C. On November 28, 2005, the Plaintiff’s wife E borrowed KRW 300 million from Defendant B, and delivered the loan certificate prepared in the name of the Plaintiff and E on November 25, 2005 to Defendant B.

E borrowed a total of KRW 400 million from Defendant C’s husband F on March 9, 2009, and KRW 300 million on March 12, 2009, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the E portion of the instant real estate as the head of Suwon District Court, the head of Suwon District Court, No. 17898, Mar. 11, 2009, and the Defendant’s children as the mortgagee G.

E. On May 12, 2009, E borrowed KRW 300 million from Defendant C. The Plaintiff and E entered the Plaintiff as the borrower with respect to the above KRW 300 million, prepared a loan certificate stating E as the guarantor, and the above loan certificate was delivered to the Plaintiff via E.

around July 2009, the Plaintiff and E delivered to F a certificate of loan indicating “the amount of 500 million won borrowed from March 9, 2009” prepared by the Plaintiff and E as the borrower, and the F was also obligated to forward more KRW 150 million on July 14, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1-7, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul-7, 2-7, 8, 3-6-2, testimony of witness F and the purport of the whole pleadings [A] evidence No. 2 (judgment on admissibility of evidence for tea evidence): The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's seal of the plaintiff out of the evidence No. 2 No. Ga No. 2 was forged with the mark without the plaintiff's permission, but there is no dispute that the part is the plaintiff's seal.