A. Defendant B’s law firm D, 2015, 2015, No. 596, Oct. 16, 2015.

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of housing construction business, etc., and F and G were represented by each Plaintiff company as the representative director. The board of directors convened on October 19, 2016, which was dismissed from office as the representative director.

Defendant B’s wife and Defendant C are F’s leakage.

B. On October 16, 2016, F drafted a notarial deed listed in Paragraph (b) of Paragraph (1) of Article 1 stating that “Defendant B lent gold 48,809,000 won to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff borrowed this,” and on October 19, 2016, the notarial deed listed in Paragraph (b) of the same Article stating that “Defendant C lent gold 58,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2015, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including virtual number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed from the office of the Plaintiff’s representative director, which led to the Plaintiff’s submission of a false No. 1 and No. 2 in favor of the Plaintiff’s wife and she.

Since the plaintiff did not borrow money from the defendants, the notarial deeds Nos. 1 and 2 of this case are null and void, and compulsory execution based on the notarial deeds must not be permitted.

B. Since the amount corresponding to each of the notarial deeds asserted by the Defendants was lent to the Plaintiff, each of the notarial deeds in this case is valid.

3. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendants lent the amount corresponding to each of the notarial deeds to the Plaintiff. As such, the issue is examined.

Although the details deposited into the account of the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendants exist, in light of the fact that there is no details of borrowings against the Defendants on the statement of financial position and the ledger of each account, and rather F is processed as a provisional deposit, the above deposit details alone are the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff.