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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a business partner, had each claim for the amount of KRW 925,166,363 against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and KRW 601,674,160 against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

B. The Plaintiff was prepared by Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”), with a statement of performance that “The above Defendant succeeded to KRW 1,526,840,523 in total to the Plaintiff’s debt to C and D, and the said debt shall be repaid in 112 million to KRW 178,000,000 each year during the nine year from May 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022, the Plaintiff signed a letter of performance (the evidence No. 1; hereinafter “instant performance letter”), and C and Defendant B affixed their joint and several sureties’s letter of performance as a joint and several sureties.

【Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (the same as Eul evidence No. 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole oral argument as a whole, since it is recognized that the subsequent stamp image after the name of the representative director of the above defendant was affixed by the above defendant's seal, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. Meanwhile, although defendant A asserted that defendant B was affixed and sealed without the defendant's representative director's permission, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above defendant's assertion, the above defendant's defense of evidence cannot

2. The parties' assertion

A. Under the Plaintiff’s assertion of performance of this case, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the debt amount of KRW 1,526,840,523, which remains after deducting the amount repaid by the Plaintiff, from the amount of debt of KRW 1,296,166,444 as stated in the above performance memorandum, and the delay

B. The Defendants’ assertion in this case was prepared as a condition for the rescission that others, who are not completely superior with Defendant A and B, shall be selected as successful bidders at the Daegu District Court, Racing-Support E auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), which was in progress at the time, and since the said rescission condition is fulfilled, the rejection of the instant execution cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Determination

(a) Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, and 8;