1. As to each defendant's plaintiff, a notary public has the deadline set forth in subparagraph 1 of 2009 of the deed of law general law office in female law firm.

1. The following facts are found to be without dispute between the parties or recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and 3-5.

A. The original Defendant and Nonparty C are friendship-gu.

B. On December 28, 2008, between the Defendant and C representing the Plaintiff, the authentication of a monetary loan agreement as follows was drafted respectively.

(1) No. 1 of 2009: The loan amount of KRW 40 million: interest rate of KRW 12% per annum; interest rate of KRW 20 million per annum; the repayment method of KRW 10 million on April 25, 2009 and May 25, 2009; and the payment of KRW 20 million on June 25, 2009; the creditor, the debtor, the debtor C; and the plaintiff who is a joint guarantor (hereinafter “No. 1 notarial deed”) (hereinafter “the notary public”) (No. 2009: the loan amount of KRW 40 million; the repayment method of KRW 10 million on February 25, 2009; and the payment of KRW 30 million on March 25, 2009; and the debtor and the debtor (hereinafter “Defendant No. 200, Mar. 25, 2009”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that KRW 39,911,00 out of the borrowed money under the notarial deed No. 1 of this case was repaid, and the borrowed money under the notarial deed No. 2 of this case was not borrowed from the Defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on Nos. 1 and 2 of this case should not be permitted.

B. (1) In full view of the reasoning of the argument on the No. 1’s assertion on the No. 1’s notarial deed, as a whole, the fact that C repaid KRW 39,911,00 ( principal 38,103,184 and interest KRW 1,807,816) out of the principal and interest on the No. 1’s notarial deed from December 31, 2008 to October 18, 201, as a whole, 39,911,00 among the principal and interest on the No. 1’s notarial deed, and KRW 1,807,816).

As to this, the defendant asserts that the remaining amount of KRW 25 million out of the above KRW 39,911,000 was appropriated for the repayment of a separate loan, not the principal and interest on the loan of No. 1 notarial deed, and C is separate from the above principal and interest on the loan to the defendant.