1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff entered into a land sales contract prior to the division was engaged in the construction business under the trade name “E” in Pyeongtaek-si D, and Defendant C (F before the opening name) was engaged in the real estate brokerage business under the trade name “H” from G, and Defendant B was working at the same office as Defendant C.

The three above three persons (hereinafter referred to as the "three persons of this case") are all middle school Dongs and are the same kind as that of middle school, and they were engaged in a business in the vicinity, so they were in a close-friendly manner.

Defendant C purchased a forest land of Pyeongtaek-si and 46,732 square meters (hereinafter “land before division”) from the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and recommended the Plaintiff to develop and sell the land as a site for electric source (hereinafter “instant project”).

The Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to enter into a contract under the name of Defendant C with the well-known land owner prior to the subdivision, and Defendant C entered into a sales contract with K on November 12, 2003, which covers 1.6 billion won of the purchase price for the land prior to the subdivision. As a special agreement, the purchaser’s name is “F and four other persons,” and the certificate No. 5 is “F and two other persons.”

The Plaintiff and Defendant B shared the down payment of KRW 130 million according to the above sales contract and the down payment of KRW 130 million each.

It is not clear when and how to pay the remainder of the purchase price. 1.47 billion won is also paid.

On January 24, 2004, the three parties of this case, which entered into a joint project agreement, prepared a written agreement setting forth the mutual relationship between the land of this case as follows.

(hereinafter “instant agreement.” Although Defendant B asserted that the instant agreement was forged, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute in the following stamp image portions of Defendant B’s name, and the evidence submitted by Defendant B alone is insufficient to recognize the said recognition and to recognize forgery. The said agreement was divided before the division of the agreement.