A. The relationship between the plaintiffs and D is the husband of the plaintiff A and the plaintiff B.

B. On July 2, 2008, D’s issuance of promissory notes and notarial delegation forms to the Defendant: D’s face value: 472,00,000,000 won for the Defendant: D’s and the Plaintiffs, the date of issuance: Defendant, and the date of payment: July 2, 2008; and the date of payment: At sight, the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment: Promissory notes as Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) were issued and delivered; and on the same day, a notarized delegation was made to the effect that “a delegation was made to the Plaintiff and D’s Defendant with the authority to commission the preparation, etc. of authentic deeds by which compulsory execution based on the said promissory notes is recognized.”

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and D, was issued a notarial deed as to the Promissory Notes in the Gwangju Joint Law Office (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”). D.

The Defendant’s compulsory execution did not present the payment of the Promissory Notes to the Defendant within one year from the date of issuance of the Promissory Notes.

Based on the instant notarial deed, on December 4, 2013, the Defendant received a decision on the seizure and collection of claims regarding the right to claim the return of lease deposit against the Plaintiff Company B’s house by the Gwangju District Court 2013TTT20191. On August 3, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Court E, Seoul Northern District Court E, which received a compulsory decision on the commencement of compulsory auction as to the F apartment 102 Dong 204 owned by Plaintiff B.

E. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff B’s criminal complaint filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff B against D as a crime of false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is primarily one, and the Promissory Notes of this case were issued at sight on July 2, 2008. The Defendant was issued on July 2, 2009, which is the due date.