1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with E Co., Ltd. (the representative director: Defendant A and Company director: Defendant B; Defendant B; hereinafter referred to as “E”); and other companies, omitted the entry of “stock company”). As to the loans for corporate purchase fund to be received from the Industrial Bank of Korea, E entered into a credit guarantee agreement that constitutes 360,000,000 of the guaranteed amount.

E entered into an agreement with the Industrial Bank of Korea for loans for corporate purchase in accordance with the above credit guarantee agreement.

(b) A corporate purchase financing loan shall be made in such a way that, when an electronic commerce contract on transactions between a borrower and a customer is submitted to a lending agency, a loan equivalent to the transaction amount shall be paid directly to the customer within the agreed lending limit.

E applied for a loan on November 30, 201 (a total of 250,000,000 won) and the electronic commerce contract (a total of 109,000,000 won) dated January 13, 201, prepared by Defendant C (the representative director: Defendant D) (the total of the supply price and the tax amount). The Industrial Bank of Korea remitted the loan amount of KRW 359,00,000 (= KRW 250,000,000) to Defendant C around that time.

C. Since then, as E did not repay the principal and interest of the above loan, the Industrial Bank of Korea demanded the Plaintiff to discharge the guaranteed obligation, and on April 26, 2011, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 366,995,940 to the Industrial Bank of Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted in collusion with the Plaintiff, which, in fact, led to the Defendant C to obtain loans by deceiving the Industrial Bank of Korea by submitting a false electronic commerce contract of this case, even if there was no goods transaction between E and the Defendant C.

The Defendants’ tort committed the above tort causes damages to the Plaintiff by subrogation, and the Defendants jointly paid part of the subrogated amount of KRW 366,95,940 to the Plaintiff.