A. On June 11, 2007, a notary public borrowed 400 million won from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff as the law firm Law No. 733 of 2007 by setting the time limit of 20% per annum and the time limit of payment by August 31, 2007. The fact that the notarial deed was prepared by the Defendant C as a joint and several surety by the Defendant C does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1.

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 40 million won and interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 12, 2007 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff is not more than KRW 300 million, unlike the entry of the said notarial deed, and that the borrowed amount was paid in KRW 100 million or KRW 120 million, out of the borrowed amount.

B. To the extent that the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the dispositive document as stated in the dispositive document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents are denied (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994). There is no counter-proof that the amount borrowed differently from the above notarial deed is KRW 300,000,000, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of performance, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.