1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In order to operate the inspection for the Buddhist consciousness, C, the representative of the Plaintiff, purchased the inspection located D in order to conduct the inspection for the Buddhist consciousness (hereinafter “the inspection of this case”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff as to the inspection of this case.

C After that, while engaging in activities as the plaintiff's well-known, the inspection of this case conducted Buddhist consciousness with Shin, etc., and E took charge of the management of the plaintiff's funds.

During that period, E left the inspection of this case due to the incombustibility with other believers around 2012.

B. On May 2013, G, the husband of E, and F and E, alleged that they lent money to the Plaintiff as the purchase fund of the instant temple, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to the effect that: (a) the procedure for registering the creation of a right to collateral security was implemented with respect to the instant temple; and (b) the F would pay for each loan of KRW 75,00,000,000 and delay damages to G (hereinafter “transfer lawsuit”).

On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff appointed H as an attorney-at-law and proceeded with the said lawsuit by appointing the Defendant, an attorney-at-law on October 2013. On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to F 75,000,000 won, and 100,000,000 won to G, and 20% interest per annum from January 22, 2014 to the day of full payment.”

On January 16, 2015, the plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, and appointed the defendant as a legal representative and proceeded with the appellate court (the District Court Decision 2014Na7323), and the judgment was rendered to the effect that the plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

The Plaintiff, while filing a final appeal, appointed the Defendant as a legal representative and proceeded with the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da9141). However, on May 29, 2015, the final appeal was pronounced.

C. Meanwhile, on January 27, 2014, the court of first instance in the previous lawsuit rendered by the Plaintiff until March 31, 2014.