1. Certificates prepared on March 27, 2012 by notary public D offices of the defendant's Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiffs of the defendant's Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From March 201 to August 25, 2012, the Defendant is an owner of a fraternity with the amount of KRW 18,120,000, monthly payment of KRW 1,320,00 (20,000,000 shall be the interest rate when receiving the fraternity by the old sequence), the amount of KRW 18,00,00,00 including the interest paid by the fraternity members who received the fraternity from March 201 to August 25, 201 (hereinafter “instant fraternity”). The Plaintiff received KRW 2,20,000 from the Defendant on March 26, 2012.

B. On March 27, 2012, the Defendant received documents necessary for preparing the authentic deed in the name of the Plaintiffs from Plaintiff B, and lent Plaintiff B as the principal debtor, Plaintiff B as a joint guarantor, and KRW 20 million on March 26, 2012. The due date for repayment is August 26, 2012, and the notary public D office of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office affiliated with the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office whose interest is 30% per annum, written on March 27, 2012 (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).

C. By August 25, 2012, the Defendant paid 6,600,000 won remaining in relation to the instant fraternity.

On June 4, 2014, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff to Daejeon District Court F in relation to Daejeon E, 603, based on the instant notarial deed, and the said court rendered a ruling to commence the compulsory auction of real estate on June 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 7-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion was prepared for the guarantee of the remaining limit of payment of the notarial deed in this case, and since the plaintiff B paid all the remaining limit of payment, the notarial deed in this case lost its validity. It is sought to exclude the executory power of the notarial deed in this case.

In addition, the amount that the Defendant exceeded the scope of the guarantee for the deposit of accounts delegated by the Plaintiffs.