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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on August 12, 201, the Defendants leased KRW 100 million to the Defendants, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the circumstances that are seen below, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 5 (written passbook copy) and No. 7 (written confirmation of facts) as consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable, since there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendants.

① The evidence No. 5 was deposited in the name of D Co., Ltd., managed by the Plaintiff, KRW 30 million, and KRW 100 million transferred by the Plaintiff to the said account on August 12, 2011. On the same day, KRW 130 million was remitted from the same account to Defendant B.

② According to the evidence No. 10 (Reasons for Non-prosecution) and evidence No. 13 (Protocol of Examination of Witness), E entered into a joint business agreement with Defendant C, and deposited KRW 200,000,000,000 in the said company’s account on August 12, 201, including KRW 130,000,000,000 in the said company’s amount of investment. Defendant C filed a complaint for embezzlement by asserting that on August 12, 2011, Defendant C transferred KRW 130,000,000 to the Defendant B’s account under its own name.

③ In civil litigation between the Defendants and E (U.S. District Court Decision 2013Da40168), the Plaintiff testified to the effect that both the investment amount was deposited into the company’s account, and the Plaintiff also entered the company’s passbook.

④ In full view of the foregoing circumstances, the Plaintiff’s KRW 100 million deposited into the said company’s account on August 12, 201 only appears to be E or the Plaintiff’s investment.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.