1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 8, 2007, with respect to promissory notes stated in the Defendants, the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, the face value of KRW 112,00,000, the issue date on November 8, 2007, and the date of May 8, 2008, the issue date, the place of payment, and the place of payment, a notary public drafted an executory deed with the authority of law firm No. 01564 in the year 2007.

B. Defendant C and D participated in the preparation of the said promissory note Notarial Deed.

C. On May 6, 2004, Defendant B shared consultations with E, and Defendant C participated in the preparation of the said promissory note as an agent of Defendant B, under the direction of E, notwithstanding the absence of delegation by Defendant B.

E, on October 7, 2009, written and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate (Evidence A 2) to the effect that the Plaintiff will repay the borrowed amount of KRW 48,500,000 by December 31, 2009.

E. E is prosecuted upon the receipt of a criminal investigation under B’s accusation and around September 28, 2007, around February 18, 2008, and the same year.

3.24.Wolth, 24.Wolth

8. around October 2, 2013, which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months on October 2, 2013, as a crime of forging or using promissory notes in the name of B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the part under defendant Eul's name among the evidence No. 2) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the claim, was prepared with the said promissory note Nos. 120,000,000, and loaned KRW 63,500,000 to the Defendants in the partnership relationship, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 48,50,000. The Defendants asserted that as the issuer of a promissory note and the obligor, the Defendants are liable to pay KRW 48,50,000 to the Plaintiff as a loan obligor and its delay damages.

B. According to the facts stated in Paragraph 1, Defendant B was not involved in the preparation of the authentic deed of promissory notes.

Defendant C and D: (a) around November 2007, when the Plaintiff lent KRW 69,90,000 to F Co., Ltd., the actual operation of E, Defendant C and D, the Notarial Deed was prepared; and (b) the said loan obligation was fully repaid.