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

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

1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 5, 8, 9, 11 to 18 (including the branch numbers).

On July 21, 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 700 million from Defendant B, and on July 22, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million to KRW 1 billion with respect to the four lots of land, including the size of 92 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff, including the size of 992 square meters, and a part of the land, which was owned by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2005Gahap71845, the confirmation of the absence of each of the above loans and the cancellation of each of the above loan obligations. In the Seoul High Court case 2006Na47495, the appellate court confirmed that the above loan obligations did not exceed KRW 597,561,643, and the damages for delay did not exceed KRW 597,561,643, and the Defendant B received the above money from the Plaintiff and subsequently performed the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of each of the above mortgages, and the above judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was borrowed to use the above KRW 700 million as interest expenses necessary for issuing new shares by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and the Plaintiff, at the time, decided to borrow the above KRW 700 million and set up each of the above collateral security rights, under the condition that the Plaintiff would suspend the Defendant D, bonder, Defendant B, and G’s offering of new shares, who were involved in the operation of G, as the representative director of G, would have become sexual intercourse.

Then, the Plaintiff paid as interest KRW 50 million out of the money received from G’s loan to Defendant B, and additionally paid KRW 450 million from August 19, 2004 to September 2004.

However, G’s capital increase with capital increase was not only the capital increase due to the fictitious payment but also the original impossibility from the date of the loan.