2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Defendant C is operating a Coinomer room in the official city in the official city, and Defendant D is engaged in tegrative fishery.

B. In order to operate the Coino Lake, the Plaintiffs leased the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and F, and entered into a construction contract with Defendant D on March 3, 2016, with Defendant C’s introduction, the Plaintiffs entered into the contract with Defendant D on the construction work with the content that the Plaintiffs are the contract cycle for the above coinogate engineering work as follows:

(hereinafter “First Contract”). Construction period from March 3, 2016 to May 2, 2016: Construction amount: KRW 320,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the payment period of KRW 100,000 on March 4, 2016; KRW 80,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 80,000 on March 4, 2016; KRW 70,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 70,000 on March 21, 2016; and KRW 320,000,000 for the remainder on April 11, 2016; and

C. In addition, separate from the foregoing first contract, the name of Nonparty G, which is the fraud of Plaintiff A and Defendant D, was written as of March 9, 2016, the above Coinomia contract (the price of construction KRW 120,000,000, Value-Added Tax) was prepared as of March 9, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as “the second contract”) d.

Around May 2016, Defendant D completed the Medilalympia construction work.

E. In around 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants on the suspicion that “the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiffs and acquired the construction cost in the Coinoman bank” against the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and against the suspicion that “Defendant D forged and exercised the secondary contract,” respectively, against Defendant D as the crime of forging private document and uttering of the falsified document.

F. On February 2019, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office rendered a decision that there was no suspicion against the Defendants as to each of the above suspicion (defluence of evidence). The Plaintiffs appealed. On April 8, 2019, the prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office issued a second investigation order with respect to the suspicion of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant D, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal against the remaining suspicions by the Defendants.

(g) thereafter;