1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a business contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) operated by the Defendant’s husband C (hereinafter “A”), with the content that the Plaintiff would invest KRW 1.2 billion in the company.

The company decided to guarantee the plaintiff's profit of KRW 1.7 billion, and to set up a second priority collective security at the representative director's home in order to repay the principal amount of KRW 1.2 billion.

B. On May 15, 2007, C completed the registration of creation of a mortgage with the Plaintiff, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount at KRW 1 billion with respect to F apartment 211, Dong 1701 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim:

A. On May 15, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant as of KRW 1.2 billion, due date, August 31, 2007, when lending money to the company.

B. On July 2010, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 592,918,074 in the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million, which is part of the loan unpaid to the Plaintiff.

3. While the Plaintiff submitted evidence as evidence of the conclusion of a monetary loan agreement, the Plaintiff appears to have forged the said loan certificate by G (C’s partner)’s employee H, in full view of the written evidence No. 4-1, No. 11, and No. 4-1, and No. 11, as well as witness G’s witness G testimony, and the entire purport of this court’s CD verification result.

Therefore, the above loan certificate cannot be used as evidence because it cannot be recognized as the authenticity.

The Plaintiff asserts that C prepared the above loan certificate on behalf of the Defendant by way of G or H, but there is no evidence to prove that part of G’s testimony that seems consistent with it is difficult to believe, and otherwise, C has the authority to act for the Defendant.

The plaintiff also has the defendant C.