1. Defendant C’s law firm E on January 6, 2014, No. 21 of the document No. 2014, Jan. 6, 2014.

1. On January 6, 2014, even though the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant C, the Plaintiff C, the obligor A, the loan amount of KRW 30,00,00, and the due date of payment under the law firm E on February 6, 2014, and the money loan loan contract of KRW 30% per annum (No. 21 of 2014; hereinafter “No. 1 of this case”) with the obligee C, the obligor A, the loan amount of KRW 50,00,00, the due date of payment of KRW 24% per annum between the Defendant C and the Defendant C, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant D’s obligee on June 11, 2018 with the money loan of KRW 30,00,00,000, KRW 500,000, and KRW 20,000,000 per annum 24,000,000 per annum 78,07,081.

According to the above facts, each of the notarial deeds in this case is null and void for non-existent obligations, so compulsory execution based on each of the notarial deeds in this case Nos. 1 and 2 against Defendant C and compulsory execution based on Defendant D’s 3 notarial deeds against the plaintiffs in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are with merit, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.