A. Plaintiff A is the husband of the network I, and Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, Plaintiff E, and Plaintiff F are the children of the network I, Defendant G is the actual operator of J Co., Ltd., the subway advertising agent, and Defendant H is the representative director of J.

B. Around April 27, 2004, Defendant H obtained a promissory note of KRW 2220 million issued in his mother-friendly network I from K (the remaining Plaintiffs’ siblings) that had been liable for his occupational obligation to J at the “K-dong Seoul Mapo-gu Office of Public Administration” (hereinafter “Woo-dong Office”), and Defendant H died on November 2007.

C. Defendant G knew that the said Promissory Notes was forged by K and thus, the said Promissory Notes was made up of the authentic deed of the said Promissory Notes on behalf of the network I at will. The extinctive prescription of the said Promissory Notes was expired and thus, there was no practical benefit to bring a lawsuit on the claim for the payment of the Promissory Notes. Defendant G made a lawsuit on June 2, 2009 with the use of a forged Promissory Notes holding money to the networkI, and then, on June 2, 2009, Defendant H, who is the representative of the saidJ and the obligee of the said Promissory Notes, as the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, and Defendant H, the heir of the said Promissory Notes, as the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the heir of the networkI, and the Defendants, “the Plaintiff was lent KRW 220 million to the networkI, but the Plaintiff was dead without paying the said amount.”

Accordingly, Defendant G, by deceiving the above court, attempted to receive KRW 25,82,353 from the victim B, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, Plaintiff E, Plaintiff F, and interest thereon, and 38,823,529 won from the Plaintiff and interest thereon, but the said Plaintiff B, etc. responded.