1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs is a promissory note No. 171 dated May 30, 2014, signed by D on May 30, 2014.

1. On June 8, 2013, Plaintiff A entered into a sales contract to sell KRW 827,00,000,000,000, from the Defendant, the mother owned in his/her own name, for KRW 17,000,00,000 (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff A transferred the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, on May 30, 2014, Plaintiff A agreed with the Defendant to the effect that “Until May 30, 2017, the Defendant, including administrative fines and fines, imposed in the course of constructing a new house on the instant land without permission, shall be paid by Plaintiff A on behalf of the Defendant, and a promissory note Notarial deed shall be prepared as a security for the implementation of the commitments on administrative fines,” and Plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed Plaintiff A’s obligations.

On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with “the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 100 million, and the due date on May 30, 2017,” and then a notary public of a notarial deed prepared and issued the instant promissory note No. 171, 2014, and hereinafter “the instant promissory note No. 171,” to the effect that a notary public of a notarial deed approves compulsory execution against the Defendant. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the notarial deed of this case was written in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s judgment as to the Defendant’s main defense of the instant promissory note does not meet the requirements for compulsory execution because the authentication of the instant promissory note did not arrive at the due date ( May 30, 2017). As such, there is no legal interest in filing a lawsuit for objection to the instant claim in advance, and there is no legal interest in filing a lawsuit for objection to the instant claim, and at the time of the arrival of May 30, 2017, the validity of the issuance of a promissory note cannot be asserted, and thus, the instant lawsuit is

However, since it is apparent that the date of the payment of the Promissory Notes has already arrived at the time of the closing of the argument in this case, the above defense based on the premise that the payment date of the Promissory Notes has yet to expire is without merit

(b).