1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is a company with the objective of civil engineering and building business, and Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company with the objective of recreational condominiums sale and management and operation business, and Defendant D is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. On October 19, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 1 billion to Defendant D at the maturity date of October 19, 2008, and at the interest rate of 8% per annum. At that time, the Defendant Company guaranteed the Defendant Company’s above loan obligation. (2) On December 29, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to the Defendant Company at the maturity date of payment on January 30, 2009, at the interest rate of 9% per annum, and at the time, Defendant D guaranteed the Defendant Company’s above loan obligation.

C. On July 12, 2011, the Plaintiff, in the course of rehabilitation proceedings against the Plaintiff, was ordered to commence rehabilitation proceedings with the Seoul Central District Court 201 Gohap46, and was decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan on February 21, 2012. At the time, B, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was a legal manager.

B filed the instant lawsuit on December 10, 2012; C was appointed as a new custodian on April 30, 2014; and on April 10, 2015, the rehabilitation procedure for the Plaintiff was completed.

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs” without distinguishing the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the legal manager, and all of which are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). [Grounds for recognition], entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, 6, and 7 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Defendants’ determination on the instant safety defense agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit upon the Plaintiff’s acceptance of payment in substitutes during the instant lawsuit, and therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. However, there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement to withdraw the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and therefore, the Defendants’ defense on the instant safety cannot be accepted.

3. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance.