1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant who falls under the money ordering payment below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D is the husband of the network E, and F, Plaintiff, G, H, I, J, and K are the children of the network E, and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial is the actual operator of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) who is the subway advertising agency, and the defendant B is the representative director of L.

B. Around April 27, 2004, Defendant B obtained a promissory note certificate with a face value of KRW 220 million issued in his mother E’s name, which was issued by Defendant B under the name of his mother E, and the network E died on November 2007.

(c) C was aware that the said Promissory Notes was forged by I and not delegated by the network E at will by the I, and that the said Promissory Notes No. notarial deed was made by commissioning the network E on behalf of the network E.

Nevertheless, on June 2, 2009, after the death of the network E, Defendant B, the representative of L and the obligee of a promissory note, was the Plaintiff, and Defendant B, the heir of the network E, as the Defendants of D, F, Plaintiff, G, H, J, and K, who lent KRW 220 million to the network E, and the network E died without payment of the promissory note. Accordingly, the Defendants, the heir, filed a lawsuit seeking a return of the loan with the purport that “The Plaintiff shall pay the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff according to the share of the inheritance,” which is the Plaintiff, as the Defendants of D, F, Plaintiff, G, H, J, and K.

Accordingly, C, by deceiving the above court, intended to take the victim F, plaintiffs, G, H, J, and K 25,82,353 won, interest thereon, and 38,823,529 won from D, and interest thereon, but withdrawal of the lawsuit against the rest of the plaintiff et al. except I after the plaintiff et al. responded.

C At the time of June 11, 2009, the Mayang District Court is the High Governing Court.