1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity of the People's Republic of China, which has its head office in the People's Republic of China and operates casino business in the Makao, the Philippines, etc. in the trade name of "D".

B. From September 10, 2017 to September 13, 2017, the Defendants: (a) operated by the Plaintiff in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “E”); (b) carried out a game, such as Bara, in the “E” operated in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant casino”); and (c) borrowed money from the Plaintiff.

C. On September 10, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant B drafted a letter of loan stating that “The amount of casino chips equivalent to USD 3 million in Hong Kong shall be repaid within 15 days from the gold day. If it is impossible to repay within a given period, the Defendant B shall be liable for the interest calculated at the rate of 29.1% per annum 29.7% per annum, which is 3 times the interest rate of 3 times the statutory interest rate of 9.7% per annum, and shall bear the attorney’s expenses (20% per annum), legal expenses (20% of the principal), and taxes.”

(D) The Defendant C prepared each instrument on the casino chips equivalent to USD 1,00,00,000 Hong Kong on September 12, 2017, and KRW 2,000,000 on September 13, 2017 (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”). (hereinafter “the ground for recognition”) / The fact that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, Party A’s statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination

A. On September 10, 2017, Defendant B borrowed a casino chips equivalent to three million dollars from the Plaintiff, which is not USD 3 million in Hong Kong, and signed on a blank loan certificate that is considered to be a chips equivalent to KRW 3 million in the Philippines, and the Plaintiff asserts that the document was unfairly supplemented. 2) In a case where authenticity, such as scambling and seal impression, is recognized, the document is completely or partially complete.