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 March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 180 million to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, as part of the monthly interest rate, KRW 180 million to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant loan”). Around that time, the Plaintiff was issued a copy of a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) which was issued on March 12, 2013, and the due date on April 5, 2013.

B. On March 13, 2013, Defendant B and Defendant A endorsed this case’s promissory note in sequence (hereinafter “instant endorsement”).

[Ground of finding the authenticity of the entire document pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act when the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been established, unless there are special circumstances, inasmuch as the bill of commitment and the endorsement of the person in whose name the document was affixed was forged by D, it is presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image was established, i.e., the act of affixing the stamp image was based on the intention of the person in whose name the stamp image was prepared, and the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). Of the face of a promissory note, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the stamp image following the name of the defendant B was based on the above seal of the above defendant. Thus, the authenticity of the entire promissory note of this case is presumed to have been established, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently. Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is without merit, as to the purport of subparagraph 2-1 and subparagraph 2-2 evidence

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant A was the actual operator of the non-party company, and thus the plaintiff made an endorsement of this case, and the defendant B made an endorsement of this case under his own judgment as an internal director of the non-party company.