1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H and all appeals filed by Defendant A, B, I, and J are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. The reasons why this court's explanation concerning this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the "Defendant Thai Development Co., Ltd." in the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed to "Sai Development Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. of the court of first instance"; and (b) the "Defendant" in the 8th (domark is excluded from drinking water) to "Sai Development Co., Ltd. of the court of first instance"; and (c) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Decision 1 on the Claim against Defendant A) The Plaintiff participated in the instant dividend after receiving a false promissory note, even though the Plaintiff did not lend money to L, and the said promissory note constitutes the issuance of a false promissory note. The said promissory note is null and void.

B) Defendant A lent KRW 400,00,00 to L from February 13, 1999 to February 29, 200. Defendant A additionally lent KRW 90,000,000 on October 19, 200 and KRW 30,000 on March 4, 2010. Defendant A issued a notarial deed of KRW 1,200,000 on March 10, 2008, taking into account the interest on the principal of the loan, and if Defendant A’s 30,000,000,000 won were issued by 3.0,000,000 won on March 10, 200, 300,0000 won and 3.0,000,000 won were issued on June 14, 199, 300,000 won and 3.0,000,000 won were issued on June 30, 20000.