The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The network D died on April 28, 2014, and his/her spouse as E and his/her spouse as E and his/her spouse as F, Defendant B, Defendant C, G, H, and I.

B. The Plaintiff is the male-born of E, and G, H, and I are the natives between the deceased and E.

Defendant B and C are the children of J as the former wife of the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On February 20, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on February 20, 2008, designated the Deceased as the obligor and the surety; (b) KRW 90,000,000 annually as the interest rate of 24%; and (c) on February 20, 2012, the date of the change, as the replacement.

The Defendants who inherited the deceased are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,00,000 for each of their respective shares of inheritance (2/15) and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s direct evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s lending is only the evidence No. 1 (a loan certificate) and thus, the above evidence No. 1 (a loan certificate) is established.

The fact that the seal affixed by the name of the deceased is affixed with the seal of the deceased is recognized.

However, as seen earlier, Nonparty E, who is the Plaintiff, was the deceased’s wife and was able to easily put the deceased’s seal on his hand, and as to the loan certificate, the loan certificate, which was submitted as evidence for the loan loan of this case by the Plaintiff, as evidence for the loan of this case, was three years at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is a difference of three years at the time of the loan, and as to whether the loan certificate was written at one place except for the loan of this form and letter, it is doubtful whether the above loan certificate was affixed by the deceased’s will.

In addition, even according to the plaintiff's argument, the author's writing, including the name of the deceased on the evidence No. 1, is that the deceased did not prepare.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the plaintiff was submitted.