2. The defendant's plaintiff (appointed party) and the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, who prepared the authentic deed of promissory notes against the Defendant of the Plaintiff and the Appointed, issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the Plaintiff and the Appointed D (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the Nonparty E (hereinafter “instant underlying claim”). To secure this, the Plaintiffs and E, on July 10, 1997, issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the issuer’s amount of KRW 280,000,000, and the due date as of December 17, 1997 with the issuer’s amount of KRW 3297, the No. 1997, No. 3297, a joint law office (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”). On the same day, the Plaintiffs and E issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant.

B. On January 22, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 313,750 in the instant No. 2008Da33863, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiffs, based on the instant underlying claim, ① the seizure of automobiles against the Plaintiff and E, ② the provisional seizure of claims against the Plaintiff and E’s right to claim the return of lease deposit against the Plaintiff and E, ③ the same court’s provisional seizure of claims against the right to claim the return of lease deposit against D’s right to claim the return of lease deposit. The Defendant received KRW 313,750 in the instant No. 208Da6955, based on the instant notarial deed. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection order against the Plaintiffs under the court No. 2018 Ta5317, Apr. 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the part concerning the claim for the existence of the non-existence of obligations in the instant lawsuit is legitimate ex officio.