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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director D issued KRW 350 million at face value, Defendant C, place of payment, place of payment, and one promissory note in Seoul, respectively, (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”). If the payment of the Promissory Notes is delayed to the holders of the Promissory Notes, a notary public, who, without delay, is aware of the absence of objection to the Promissory Notes, drafted a notarial deed as of May 12, 2014, No. 3888, 2014.

B. F Co., Ltd. issued a note of Promissory Notes in Seoul (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) with the face value of KRW 60 million on the same day, the payee C, the place of payment, the place of payment, and one copy of the Promissory Notes in Seoul (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”). A notary public drafted an authentic deed No. 4566, Jun. 11, 2014, 2014, inasmuch as he/she did not raise any objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution when he/she delays the payment of the Promissory Notes to the holders of the Promissory Notes.

C. From June 18, 2014 to June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 63.3 million equivalent to the amount of the electronic bill issued by the Plaintiff.

F) On June 9, 2015, the Defendants filed a complaint with the Gwangju District Court for the charge of attempted fraud, stating that “F had all the borrowed money repaid, but filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Seoul Southern District Court.” However, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office was subject to a disposition without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence) at the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office.

F The Seoul High Court issued an application for adjudication on the above disposition under the Seoul High Court Decision 2015 Initial 4134, but the above court dismissed the application for adjudication on November 13, 2015.

E. D) Defendant B filed a complaint against Defendant B on the charge of entering false facts in the instant promissory note, stating that “The instant promissory note was recorded in the notarial deed, and exercised it,” and under suspicion of the said event, the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a disposition against Defendant B, i.e., the charge (defluence of evidence).