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 (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings);

A. Defendant D Housing Association (hereinafter “Defendant D Housing Association”) was not authorized to establish a regional housing association from the competent authority until now, a non-corporate body consisting of members recruited for the construction of collective housing at the Flin-si Flin-si.

The name before the change of the defendant corporation in charge of the settlement of disputes (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant company") is H. The above company is the executor of the business.

Defendant B is the representative of the Defendant Partnership, and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. On September 24, 2002, the G Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with the Defendant Company for the loan with the amount of KRW 2 billion as of November 30, 2002 and paid the amount of KRW 500 million on September 24, 2002 and September 25, 2002, respectively.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 27, 2002, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent KRW 1.5 billion to Defendant B and C, and the Defendant Union and the Defendant Company jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations.

Since then, the Defendants prepared a letter of undertaking on October 16, 2009 and agreed to pay damages for delay at 20% per annum if they did not repay the above loan by October 30, 2009.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 1.5 billion won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 1, 2009.

(b) If there is a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and there is an objection against the other party against the substitution for the original, a copy may not substitute for the original, on the other hand, if the copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall not be an independent documentary evidence, or otherwise, it shall not be deemed that the original has been submitted, and, in this case, it shall not be deemed that there exists the same original as the copy by evidence, and that the original has been duly constituted.