1. Promissory notes, No. 650, 2014, written by the Defendant’s law firm’s letter against the Plaintiffs on April 23, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiffs issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the Defendant as the addressee at its face value of KRW 360,00,000, and the due date of December 15, 2014. On the same day, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed to the effect that they recognize compulsory execution against the instant promissory note on a law firm book (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) by entrusting a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed to the effect that they recognize compulsory execution against the instant promissory note on a law firm book (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On October 28, 2014, Nonparty B, the Defendant’s creditor, filed an application for provisional attachment of the Defendant’s promissory note claim against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant promissory note claim”) with the Gwangju District Court 2014Kahap814, the Defendant’s right to revoke the fraudulent act against the Defendant as the preserved right. On November 6, 2014, the said court rendered a provisional attachment order on the instant promissory note claim. The Plaintiff Company’s construction on November 10, 2014, and Plaintiff Newcheon Construction Company received the provisional attachment order as of November 24, 2014.

C. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant filed an application with the Gwangju District Court 2015TTT1932 for a seizure and collection order against the claim for construction price against the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd., the Newcheon Construction Co., Ltd., the said court issued a seizure and collection order against the said claim for construction price on February 4, 2015.

On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 360,000,00 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Gwangju District Court No. 757 in 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, since the obligations of the plaintiffs against the defendant under the promissory note of this case were all extinguished by the deposit of this case, compulsory execution against the defendant under the notarial deed of this case shall be dismissed.

3. Conclusion