1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2013.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this part are the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second instance that "105,00,000 won" is "105,50,000 won" as "the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance," and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine ex officio the legal nature of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of KRW 7,701,750, among some of the lawsuits of this case, which is unlawful.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and shall no longer exist, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition shall be unlawful because it has no interest in the lawsuit.

(2) According to the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation as to the above part, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation was already extinguished and the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the non-explosive disposition was unlawful as there were no legal interests in the lawsuit. In light of the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation against the above part was unlawful as there were no legal interests in the lawsuit.

3. Whether the remaining dispositions are legitimate;

A. With respect to the interest on loans to the Plaintiff’s assertion B (a table Nos. 1), a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff lent money to B is merely a document prepared by E, the entire wife of the Plaintiff, as a means to refund investment money from B, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff actually lent money to B as stated in the above notarial deed.

B. Determination 1) The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 10, and 11. (A) An attorney-at-law in charge of authentication belonging to the General Law Office of the 21st century who prepared a No. 21st century is the agent of Eul on Oct. 10, 2007.