Plaintiff

A is the wife of the deceased, and the plaintiff B and E are children, and the defendant is the subject of D.

1. Upon D’s request to invest in the clothing business of F in F’s summary of the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant delivered KRW 400 million to F in a check on July 1, 201, and delivered to the Defendant a loan certificate stating that D borrowed the said money from the Defendant (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) on July 15, 201. Accordingly, the Defendant leased D KRW 400 million to D on July 1, 2013. As such, the Plaintiffs and E, who are the successors of D, are obliged to pay the Defendant a sum of KRW 400 million and delay damages therefrom according to their respective shares of inheritance.

2. The loan certificate of this case cannot be used as evidence, since there is no evidence to prove that the seal affixed following the name of D is based on the D’s seal, and the authenticity is not recognized.

Rather, in full view of the statements No. 7-11 and 12-3 of the evidence No. 7, the testimony of the witness G, and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the H/Eup by the court, the following facts are recognized only

① Since D had left the Republic of Korea on June 8, 201 and entered the Republic of Korea on July 10, 2011, D could not be seen as a check claiming that the Defendant served to F on July 1, 201, and G, which served as D’s letter, did not indicate the number of the said check at the time. Therefore, D cannot be deemed as having been able to prepare the instant loan instrument containing “one copy of the KRW KRW KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.”

② There is no evidence to deem that D’s seal imprint was not affixed to D’s seal imprint affixed to the loan certificate of this case and that D used the seal.

(3)