1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant C asserts that the plaintiffs’ claim cannot specify the subject matter of a lawsuit, and that it is against the good faith principle by repeatedly filing an unfair lawsuit. However, the grounds for the claim in this case can be determined as follows, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the remaining claim, and all of them are without merit.

B. Defendant E asserts that Defendant E is a duplicate lawsuit since it is pending in the process of filing a lawsuit with the same content as that of the Plaintiff A Company (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Kadan3229) against itself, but the date of filing the lawsuit in this case is January 26, 2010, and thus, it is not accepted by this court since the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed earlier than the above lawsuit was remarkable.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is that the plaintiffs, who were the employees of the plaintiff corporation A, participated in the embezzlement for the long time, the representative director of the defendant corporation C, D, and the defendant corporation F, and the defendant Eul, were involved in the act of embezzlement for the long time, and the defendant Eul maintained the illegal public prosecution by causing false testimony, and the defendant G and the above K filed a false tax return. The defendant Eul submitted false documents to the court or made a false statement. The defendant D also made a false statement, and the defendant D also filed a false statement, and the defendant filed a false statement with some claims, asserting that they are co-offenders or aids of the above J et al., the principal offender, and sought payment of money as stated in the main claim and performance or confirmation as stated in the primary and conjunctive claim.

B. However, even if it is based on all evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, including the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 94 (including each number), it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the assertion alone is sufficient to confirm the performance of the duty to correct the value-added tax equivalent to the value-added tax claimed in the main and conjunctive claim, or to confirm the tax invoice as a true certificate of the