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 December 1, 199, the Plaintiff newly constructed the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, E, and F ground Gelel (hereinafter “instant telecom”). From April 1, 2002, the Plaintiff leased the instant telecom to Ha, Nam-nam from April 1, 2002.

B. On July 20, 2006, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant cartel was initiated, and I awarded a successful bid for the said cartel and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the said land and the instant cartel on June 30, 2009.

C. He continued to operate the instant telecom even during the above auction procedure, and transferred the instant telecom to I around July 20, 2009 by the Plaintiff’s instruction. D.

Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff demanded I to return various equipment installed in the above telecom, I refused to return the equipment, etc. from H to 2 million won by presenting a sales contract, and H asserted that H merely received the said money as a director cost, and that it did not sell the equipment, etc. to I.

E. On July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Gwangju Western Police Station for embezzlement (related to refusal to return non-goods) and fabrication of private documents, and suspicion of the relevant event (related to forgery of a sales contract).

Defendant C, who was an investigator in charge of the foregoing case, sent I to the prosecution without suspicion, and Defendant B, who was a prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office, decided on February 26, 2010 that I was not prosecuted.

(B) After the Plaintiff filed a complaint with H by embezzlement in 2009, and the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor's Office prosecuted H as embezzlement, and the judgment of innocence was rendered final and conclusive on H.

(This Court's 201 High Court's 2851, 2013No456). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion - The sales contract presented by I is forged. Defendant C and B did not examine whether they are forged by confirming the original copy of the sales contract. In addition, even though the Defendants confirmed that H had not sold equipment, etc. to H, they do not prosecute I.