1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiffs shall execute the law firm Daegu General Law Office No. 1437, 2004.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2004, a notary public signed a notarial deed of debt repayment contract with the purport that the Plaintiff A will pay for KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant on February 20, 2004 as the 1437 Certificate of Daegu General Law Office (Seoul Special Law Office) and that the payment period of KRW 5,00,000 from the Defendant on June 20, 2004 was set as 60% per annum, and that the Plaintiff B will guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation and jointly perform the obligation with the Plaintiff A.

(B) On July 27, 2004, a notary public borrowed KRW 3,00,00,000 from the defendant on February 20, 2004 as of February 20, 2004, with the maturity of payment of KRW 3,00,000 from the defendant on June 20, 2004, the interest rate of KRW 60% per annum, and the deed of debt repayment contract was prepared to the effect that the plaintiff Eul guaranteed the plaintiff's obligation and jointly performs the obligation with the plaintiff (hereinafter "notarial deed No. 1438") (hereinafter "notarial deed No. 1438"), and combined with the notarial deed No. 1437 and No. 1438, "each notarial deed of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, the purport of each of the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of all pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Plaintiff A’s assertion 1) around 2004, Plaintiff A worked as an employee at an entertainment drinking house operated by D. A, and D demanded the Plaintiff to prepare a loan certificate with a loan amount of KRW 5 million and KRW 3 million, after paying the loan amount of KRW 8 million in advance. Plaintiff A prepared and issued a loan certificate at D’s request, and issued Plaintiff A’s certificate of the personal seal impression and the Plaintiff B’s certificate of the personal seal impression to D, but the Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that each of the notarial deeds was prepared, and were not aware of the fact that each of the notarial deeds was written by the creditors on the notarial deed.

3. While Plaintiff A worked in the above entertainment tavern, Plaintiff A forced the said Plaintiff to arrange or coerce sexual traffic as well as entertainment entertainment business within the business establishment on the ground that the said Plaintiff had a prepaid payment. Accordingly, the said Plaintiff was 3 and 4 times a week.