A. On April 24, 2008, the non-party C and the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations (hereinafter "the loan obligations in this case") against the defendant on December 29, 2008 by a notary public against the defendant as 2465, No. 208, the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e. the e., the e.

B. As the Defendant did not receive the instant loan obligations from C, it applied for a compulsory auction of real estate on the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by Jeonju District Court D for a compulsory auction on April 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of the preparation of the notarial deed in this case, C deceiving the Plaintiff as “Irrre’s husband was involved in an accident and is in the process of a lawsuit for compensation for damages, and Irre the guarantee is needed by Irreh’s guarantor.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff was aware that Irreh’s guarantee was written, and the notarial deed in this case was

Therefore, since the plaintiff's expression of intent of joint and several sureties is by deception C, it is revoked by the plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Even if the cancellation of the declaration of intent by deception is not accepted, there is no fact that the Defendant actually paid KRW 92 million to C as stated in the Notarial Deed of this case, and thus, the Defendant did not incur the instant loan obligations that constitute the principal obligation.

C. Meanwhile, around March 24, 2012, C repaid the Defendant KRW 70 million to the Defendant and paid the above KRW 70 million between the Defendant and the Defendant.