1. The defendant's notary public C belonging to the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office on August 27, 2014 prepared by the defendant on August 27, 2014 No. 979.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff Gap, who operated the heading office with the trade name "D, borrowed 30 million won from the defendant who runs the sales business of alcoholic beverages on August 21, 2014 as a financial support for promotion of sales. The plaintiff Gap decided to pay 30 million won and 2 million won each month from September 2014 to November 2015. The plaintiff Eul jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the plaintiff Eul, and the defendant and the defendant entrusted the third party with the preparation of a notarial deed recognizing the existence of no objection even if compulsory execution is performed, and the plaintiff Eul's debt cannot be acknowledged as a notarial deed of this case from September 2014 to November 2015 as a notarial deed of this case.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.