1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A notary public against the defendant of the appointed person shall have the D Law Office on 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff (Appointed; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed C (hereinafter “Appointed”) and the Defendant: (a) KRW 5,000,000, interest rate of KRW 25% per annum; (b) maturity on April 27, 2014; (c) the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the obligor, and the joint and several sureties, are the Plaintiff (the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation KRW 6,250,00), and the Plaintiff and the Appointed, approve the said obligation; and (d) if not performing the obligation, a notary public was immediately forced to perform the said obligation, the notarial deed (a notarial deed) signed by the D Legal Office No. 278 (Loan for Consumption) (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. At the Daegu District Court on November 30, 2016, F was convicted of the Defendant on the charge that, on August 30, 2013, F, by deceiving the Plaintiff, “I would like to bring the Plaintiff on KRW 30,000,000 upon offering the land as security and lending the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff,” and obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the security value of KRW 20,000,000 (Tgu District Court 2015No5403), the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 5 (including the provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On August 8, 2013, the Plaintiff and the designated parties borrowed a total of KRW 77,150,000 from the Defendant, including borrowing KRW 30,00,000 from the Defendant, and repaid the total of KRW 90,120,00 by May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff and the designated parties paid the principal in excess of KRW 2,404,04,043.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the observer seek confirmation of the absence of debt based on the Notarial Deed of this case against the defendant.

B. Defendant lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff via F on August 8, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she repaid KRW 4,00,000 to the Defendant on October 1, 2013, but the Defendant did not receive the said money.

Based on this, the plaintiff and the designated person.