1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the notarial deed of this case is not only a notarial deed made by the defendants and D's coercion, but also a notarial deed of this case is made by the defendants' deception or due to mistake in important part of the juristic act. Thus, the plaintiff's statement of intent as to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case is cancelled as a delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be rejected.

2. In light of the judgment, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was prepared as alleged by the Plaintiffs, which led to the Defendants and D’s coercion in preparing the notarial deed of this case.

It is not sufficient to recognize that there was a mistake on the part of the Defendants’ deception or juristic act, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account the evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, evidence Nos. 7, 8, evidence Nos. 1, evidence Nos. 2, evidence Nos. 1 through 11, 3 through 6, and the overall purport of the Defendant’s newspapers and arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff, working for the Defendants E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on March 30, 2015, prepared a confirmation statement stating the fact that he/she recognizes the occupational embezzlement and other criminal charges, and ② the Defendants, who were in the position of the representative director or director at the time, posted the supply price to YE and then embezzled KRW 36,00,000 by receiving the difference from F, and he/she directly received the Plaintiff’s name and seal No. 36,000,000 from 12, Dec. 7, 2011 to 16, 2014).