1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are F.m. expressed as the representative of the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, set up a right to collateral security with respect to some of the 149 households of the 149 apartment units H located in Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheong-gun, the Plaintiff owned (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in order to repay the agreed amount of KRW 900 million against Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), which is unrelated to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s representative director, (i) and (ii) borrowed from I Association KRW 90 million and repaid the agreed amount.

As above, Defendant B, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, inflicted damages on the Plaintiff in violation of the duty of care, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages pursuant to Article 399 of the Commercial Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act.

Defendant C, as the Plaintiff’s auditor, was fully aware of Defendant C’s breach of duty of care as seen above, was inflicted on the Plaintiff in violation of the auditor’s duty of care, and thus, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

On the other hand, Defendant D as the representative of Defendant E and the actual operator of J (hereinafter “J”) appointed Defendant B as the representative director of J, and had Defendant B take over the Plaintiff under the name of J, and made Defendant B prepare a promissory note with a face value of KRW 900 million to Defendant E in the name of the Plaintiff, and made the Plaintiff pay the said agreed money with the instant apartment as collateral, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for such damage.

Since Defendant D was in the position of representative director of Defendant E and caused damage to the Plaintiff due to its performance of duties, Defendant D is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for such damage pursuant to Article 35 of the Civil Act or Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act.

As a matter of choice, Defendant B prepared a notarial deed of the Promissory Notes with a view to promoting the interests of G, and Defendant D knew or could have known that Defendant B performed the above act for the interests of G.