1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. All the plaintiffs' claims expanded by this court are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. Around February 2010, Plaintiff A filed a complaint against Nonparty D and E in each fraud; around March 2010, Plaintiff A filed an additional complaint against Nonparty D and E for the alteration and uttering of each private document; D and E; D’s alteration and uttering of an altered private document; and D’s alteration and uttering of an altered private document; and

(F) The limit of delegated affairs delegated by Article 2 (Delegated Limit) A to B shall be until the district public prosecutor's office is determined.

Article 4 (Mandatary's Status) A person shall have the right and duty as a lawyer to manage the entrusted affairs under the care of a good manager in accordance with the substance of the mandate, on the basis of the rights and duties prescribed by Acts

Article 7 (Payment of 15,000,000 won (Additional Tax Map) at the time of prosecution for success fees of KRW 25,000,000 (Additional Tax Table) at the same time with the delegation of gold at the time and at the time of the previous cause for the payment and at the time, Section 7 (Payment of Additional Tax) A shall pay to Section B, in addition to the expenses prescribed in the preceding Article, the following remuneration:

The contingent remuneration shall be paid according to the following classification only if all or part of the delegated affairs are successful:

(2) A shall not demand the return of the retainers paid once, even if the delegation contract is rescinded, the death of the party concerned, or any other cause occurs.

A mandatary shall perform legal advice services in respect of disputes arising in connection with the boundary invasion with D.

Article 15 (Matters of Special Agreement)

B. On June 25, 2010, in order to supplement the details of the instant complaint, the Plaintiffs entered into a delegation agreement with the Defendant regarding the delegation of a lawsuit on behalf of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”).

The main contents of the above contract are as follows:

(Plaintiff A is “A” and the Defendant is “B”).

Plaintiff

B On June 25, 2010, a stock company (hereinafter “B”) paid KRW 27,500,000 (=25,000,000) including value-added tax as the retainer of the instant delegation contract to the Defendant (i.e., value-added tax).

The defendant filed the complaint of this case with the Cheongyang Branch Office of the Government's Goyang Branch around July 2010.