1. The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A, a representative of Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”), is a company established for the purpose of loan brokerage, loan brokerage, etc., and the Defendants are major shareholders of Plaintiff E (hereinafter “E”) who operated transportation business and were registered as representative director or in-house director.

B. On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff A and the Defendants entered into a contract for the acquisition of all shares (ordinary shares) and management rights of KRW 10 million from the Defendants, and the Defendants’ joint and several surety obligations against EF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), with the content that the Defendants would acquire the Defendants’ joint and several surety obligations against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. Meanwhile, E, upon filing an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures with the Jung-gu District Court 2013 Gohap22 as of September 6, 2013 due to the aggravation of management conditions, was investigated as to whether the liquidation value exceeds the continuous business value as a result of the investigation by the investigating committee, and received a decision to discontinue rehabilitation procedures from the above court on December 26, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 12 evidence, Eul evidence 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The primary assertion of the Plaintiffs 1) concluded the instant contract without notifying the Plaintiffs of the fact that the Defendants were aware of the financial status of E and of the lack of profitability. The primary assertion of the Plaintiffs is that the value of E’s asset was KRW 2.4 billion, and net income was KRW 84 billion each year, based on the written application for credit approval (certificate No. 2) and the explanatory note (certificate No. 3, etc.) submitted by the Defendants to F.

Therefore, the plaintiffs, as the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, cancel the contract of this case on the ground of fraud, and the above contract is retroactively null and void, and the defendants are the plaintiffs.