A. On June 27, 2013, E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on June 27, 2013, the Plaintiffs, as their children, are the deceased’s property successors, and the Defendant is the deceased’s birth.

B. On October 11, 2008, the Deceased entered into a lease agreement between F and F with regard to the lease deposit for the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G underground floor, which is KRW 75,000,000, and the term of lease from October 18, 2008 to October 18, 2010, and paid the lease deposit to F on the date of the contract.

After that, on October 16, 2008, the deceased completed a move-in report from "Seoul Jung-gu H" to "Seoul Jung-gu G 101" and moved-in report.

C. Meanwhile, on October 16, 2008, the Deceased and the Defendant entrusted the preparation of a promissory note No. 588 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) on the part of the issuer E, the addressee, the Defendant, and the date of issuance, October 10, 2008, and October 10, 2018, in order to immediately accept compulsory execution on a promissory note with respect to which “the amount of face value 65,00,000,000 won” was written by a notary public as of October 16, 2008.

[Ground for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 9, 10 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. (1) The plaintiffs asserted that the notarial deed of this case was invalid because the deceased entered into a lease agreement between F on October 11, 2008 and the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office on the lease deposit amount of KRW 75,000,000 on the G underground floor. The defendant notified that it is necessary to prove that the above lease deposit was borrowed from the deceased for the purpose of continuing to receive the government subsidy, and that the notarial deed of false promissory notes between the deceased and the defendant was made for the purpose of submitting the Dong office for social welfare benefit application. The notarial deed of this case asserts that it is invalid because it was by a false declaration of intention conspired with the deceased.

(2) The defendant shall be the defendant.