1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiffs shall make a loan for consumption of money, No. 1041, 2006, which is the certificate of law firm master plan.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant engaged in credit business with the trade name of E from December 21, 2004 to December 31, 2009.

B. On August 16, 2006, the Defendant agreed to grant a loan of KRW 300 million to Plaintiff A on August 21, 2006, with the rate of 48% per annum from the date of the above repayment.

C. On August 21, 2006, Plaintiff A and the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 400 million in consideration of the principal and interest in arrears of the above loan. On August 28, 2006, Plaintiff A and the Defendant prepared a notarial deed under a money loan agreement with the due date (No. 1041, 2006, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”), Plaintiff B and C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow money on the instant notarial deed against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The notarial deed of this case asserted by the plaintiffs is merely a document prepared by the defendant at will, and the plaintiff A borrowed KRW 344,051,015 from the defendant and repaid KRW 344,05,015, and eventually, the defendant's loan claims against the plaintiff A were all extinguished.

In addition, the above loan claims have expired even with the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period, and thus, the non-permission of compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case is sought.

B. At the time when the Defendant’s assertion was made, the Plaintiffs had legitimate delegation, and the Defendant applied for compulsory execution on January 17, 2008, ② February 13, 2008, ③ March 11, 2014, and the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim was suspended, and the Defendant did not have received reimbursement on three occasions through compulsory execution.

In addition, since the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s payment in kind was suspended on June 18, 2012, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 8 as to the establishment of the authenticity of the notarial deed of this case and the purport of the entire pleadings, the notarial deed of this case is owned by the plaintiffs.