1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff

On January 10, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 120 million to the Defendants with respect to hot spring development projects promoted by the Defendants. On the same day, the Defendants drafted a certificate of investment agreement (Evidence A 1) with respect to KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff.

On August 10, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendants 10 million with the purchase fund of five parcels in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheong-gun.

On October 15, 2009, the Defendants drafted a letter of commitment (Evidence 3) that “the Defendants would jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 220 million (i.e., KRW 120 million on January 10, 2007, KRW 100 million on August 10, 2008) by February 20, 201.”

The Plaintiff respectively lent KRW 40 million to Defendant B, as a criminal agreement amount, and KRW 49 million to Defendant B as an installment.

On March 20, 2012, the Defendants drafted a letter of commitment (Evidence A No. 4) stating that “The Defendants would jointly and severally pay the said KRW 89 million by May 30, 2012 (= KRW 40 million) to the Plaintiff.”

Therefore, the Defendants agreed to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39 billion (i.e., KRW 220 million) to the Plaintiff through the preparation of the disposal document as above (i.e., KRW 89 million).

Ultimately, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 39 million and damages for delay from May 31, 2012, which is the day following the final repayment date.

Judgment

Plaintiff

The evidence No. 1 (Certificate of Investment Deposit Agreement), No. 3 (Written Statement of Payment Declaration), and No. 4 (Written Declaration of Payment Declaration), which are evidence conforming to the facts alleged, cannot be used as evidence because the authenticity is not recognized.

(M) In light of the result of the appraiser F’s appraisal of the seal imprint and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is revealed that the defendants’ seal imprinted with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 is different from the defendants’ seal imprinted with the defendants’ seal imprinted with Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 14. According to the purport of each of the statements and the entire arguments as well as Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 14, the