1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 20, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with a senior construction company (hereinafter “a senior construction”), and issued a credit guarantee agreement with a senior construction company (hereinafter “a senior construction”), by October 20, 209, with respect to a corporate purchase financing loan that a senior construction is to receive from a national bank, until October 20, 2009, and until October 20, 2009.

In order to establish a loan agreement with a national bank for corporate purchase as a security, the credit guarantee agreement was concluded.

(b) A corporate purchase financing loan shall be made in a manner in which loans equivalent to the transaction amount are paid directly to the customer within the agreed limit of loans, when a tax invoice drawn up between the borrower and the customer are submitted to the lending agency;

On February 2, 2009, Liby Construction applied for a loan on January 5, 2009, issued by Defendant A (Representative Director: Defendant B), which is a business partner, on the basis of a tax invoice for the amount of goods (the total amount of KRW 490 million). On February 3, 2009, a national bank remitted a loan of KRW 490 million to Defendant A on February 3, 2009.

C. Since then, as a result, as a result, the Liby Construction did not repay the above loan obligation, the National Bank demanded the Plaintiff to discharge the guaranteed obligation. Accordingly, on April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff subrogated to the National Bank for the payment of KRW 392 million (i.e., loans of KRW 490 million x 80%).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of an order to submit financial transaction information to a national bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Defendants, in collusion with the Plaintiff’s view to the construction of depreciation, deceiving a national bank by issuing the instant tax invoice and submitting it, even though there was no actual commodity transaction.

The Defendants’ tort committed by the Defendants, as seen above, suffered damages by subrogationing KRW 392 million equivalent to 80 million of the above loans, and thus, the Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff.