beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from the Defendants; (b) drafted a certificate of borrowing with F, the agent of the Defendants E and the Defendant C, together with F, the agent of the Defendants C, that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from the Defendants as of November 28, 2014.”
B. In the process of drawing up the above loan certificate, the Defendants’ collateral value of G housing was merely KRW 160,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff offered as security, and thus, the agreement was interrupted on the ground that the Defendants demanded additional collateral. In this case, the Plaintiff received a copy of the loan certificate, “interest rate of 2.8% per annum and the creditor and joint and several sureties column, respectively,” issued from E (hereinafter “the first loan certificate”).
C. Since then, D, which introduced the Defendants to the Plaintiff, provided its house as security and provided its joint and several sureties, was prepared with the loan certificate (the “monthly” on the “year,” which was “interest 2.8% per month, the creditor, the Defendants, and the joint and several sureties,” which was “D” (the interest portion, which was affixed with the same text; hereinafter “the second loan certificate”).
On April 2015, through E, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 9,00,00,00 to the Defendants via E, and KRW 26,00,00,000 to the Defendants on May 1, 2015, and KRW 4,200,000 on May 19, 2015, and KRW 10,000,000 to Defendant C on July 17, 2015, and KRW 5,00,000,00 on March 25, 2016, and KRW 28,00,000 to the Defendants on March 28, 2016.
E. The Plaintiff prepared the instant second loan certificate by altering the first loan certificate, and filed a complaint with the Defendants by deceiving the Plaintiff and compelling the Defendants to pay the money. The Cheongju District Prosecutors’ Office (Cheongju District Prosecutors’ Office) rendered a non-prosecution decision on September 21, 2016 on the ground that “it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have deceiving the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to prove the charge that the Defendants altered the first loan certificate.”