1. Certificates, No. 1722, 2008, written by the defendant against the plaintiffs, a notary public, the same law firm.

1. Indication of claim;

A. On November 24, 2008, F issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 800,000,000 at face value, and on March 31, 2009, the place of payment and the place of payment, each Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of issue, and each other, and a promissory note with an addressee as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On the same day, when a notary public delays the payment of a promissory note under the law firm No. 1722 on the same day with the instant promissory note attached thereto, he prepared and executed a notarial deed stating the purport of recognizing that there is no objection even if he is subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. At the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes, F issued the Promissory Notes to the Defendant, on the premise that some of the members of the G religious organization H church, which he had been a member of the company, shall move in and establish a “J” of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Council affiliated with a separate I religious order, and that the Promissory Notes were used only as funds for the establishment of the above church.

C. Thereafter, F died, and the Plaintiffs jointly inherited F’s property. D.

Since the issuance of the above promissory note, the defendant does not purchase land for the establishment of the above JJ church or commence construction of church buildings.

In addition, on December 20, 2007, the defendant was admitted to the position of the member of the Jago Association belonging to the Seoul Gangnam-gu local council, which belongs to the I religious order, and on August 21, 2014, the defendant lost the status of the member of the above church because he was missing by the above religious order and was subject to the disposition of the closure of the church, and the Jago also did not belong to the above religious order.

E. Ultimately, it became impossible for the Defendant to establish a JJ, and accordingly, it is also impossible to use the amount of the promissory note in accordance with the Promissory Notes, which was the prerequisite for the issuance of the Promissory Notes, as the establishment fund of the JJ, so compulsory execution against the Plaintiffs should be dismissed.

2. Unauthorized pleadings under applicable provisions of Acts;