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

A. On February 1, 2006, the Plaintiff’s assertion D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a lease agreement with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and drafted a cash storage certificate to pay KRW 36,000,000,00 in total, including lease deposit and rent, to be paid on August 1, 2007 (hereinafter “the cash storage certificate of this case”).

At the time, the borrower of the cash custody certificate of this case was D, and the representative C was unable to believe his ability to repay, and thus, B also guaranteed the debt.

Since the Plaintiff was the representative of E, the Defendants, the debtor, should return to the Plaintiff KRW 36,00,000 as stated in the cash custody certificate of this case.

B. In light of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the loan certificate of this case contains the following: "D keeps a total of KRW 36 million from Eul on February 1, 2006, and promises to pay on August 1, 2007."

According to the above facts, a person entitled to receive the cash custody certificate of this case is only recognized as "E", and even if the plaintiff was the representative of "E" at the time, the above loan cannot be claimed to pay it to him/her.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff is a creditor regarding KRW 36,00,000 as stated in the cash custody certificate of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.