1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. This Court shall have regard to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution of 2015 Chicago2015.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for investment support with the purport that the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) in the name of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) invests KRW 50 million in the investment amount of G large festivals (hereinafter “instant festival”) as the holding period from December 29, 2012 to February 24, 2013, and remitted KRW 50 million to the Nonparty Company.

Plaintiff

B at the time of the above agreement, the non-party company agreed to pay 33% of the above investment amount jointly with the non-party company if the non-party company is unable to return the investment amount.

Around January 2013, Nonparty D entered into a contract with Nonparty D with the effect that Nonparty D would pay 15 million won and operate a group restaurant among the instant festivals places.

At D’s request, the Plaintiff invested KRW 30 million in total, including KRW 15 million, operating expenses, and KRW 15 million in connection with the above contract.

On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiffs issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 80,000,000,000,000 at face value, Defendant, and due date, February 28, 2015. Plaintiff B prepared and issued a notarized deed No. 241, 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) by a notary public belonging to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office, stating the purport to recognize compulsory execution based on the said promissory note as a principal and a representative of Plaintiff B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, witness D's partial testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

B. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that only 33% of the Plaintiff Company’s debt to Nonparty Company E is jointly and severally liable, but only H is detained as the actual representative of Nonparty Company, the Plaintiff’s home environment, etc. was written during the instant notarial deed while the Plaintiff was not yellow. However, in fact, the Plaintiff’s debt is against Nonparty Company E.