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

The plaintiff filed a complaint against C and D with fraud, and Eul as a forgery of private document, but the prosecutor of the Nan District Prosecutors' Office B at the Nan District Prosecutors' Office rendered a disposition on June 4, 2013, as to C and D, to the effect that there is no suspicion (defluence of evidence) and as to E, it did not have the right to prosecute.

(2) On February 2018, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Ministry of Justice to the effect that “B prosecutor made a disposition of non-prosecution regarding the above suspects who are daily workers with the 20 billion large fraud, and the F prosecutor was acquitted but was pronounced not guilty, which led to the F prosecutor’s investigation, and thus, the said prosecutor’s investigation and punishment would change due to the waiver of his/her duties.” On February 27, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff on February 27, 2018, a civil petition regarding criminal investigation, handling and investigation processes, a civil petition regarding the prosecutor and investigator belonging to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, a petition against the prosecutor belonging to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, and a petition against investigators, etc., constitutes duties under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, thereby notifying the results of treatment by transferring the said civil petition

On March 9, 2018, the Prosecutor General sent the above civil petition documents received from the Ministry of Justice to the Suwon Branch of the District Prosecutors' Office and instructed the plaintiff to notify the results of their treatment.

On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a trial to perform the duty of disciplinary action against B public prosecutor. However, the Defendant’s Ministry of Justice dismissed on June 19, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-6 and 9 (including more than one number), and the gist of the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the entire argument is as follows: The plaintiff filed a complaint against Eul and D by fraud, and Eul by forgery of private document; however, the prosecutor filed a non-prosecution disposition against the above suspects on June 4, 2013, and sold approximately KRW 1.5 billion real estate to others.

After that, the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against C, claiming the amount of KRW 100 million and damages for delay, and C was convicted of fraud against other victims, but C was convicted of fraud.