1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 12, 2006, the defendant entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the content that "the creditor was 9.9 million won on June 16, 2006, the due date for repayment, July 25, 2006, and 20% interest if the debtor and the joint guarantor fail to perform the monetary obligation under this contract, the creditor was immediately subject to compulsory execution, and the notary public requested the preparation of a notarial deed of the above contents (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of this case") in the capacity of the creditor and joint guarantor as the defendant, debtor D, and joint guarantor as the plaintiffs, and the debtor and joint guarantor as the proxy." The notary public prepared a notarial deed of the above contents (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of this case") in the capacity of the creditor and joint guarantor.

B. The notarial deed of this case contains a letter of delegation (hereinafter referred to as “the letter of delegation of this case”) stating that the plaintiffs granted the right of representation to the defendant with respect to the preparation of authentic deeds, which is accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression of the principal. Accordingly, the letter of delegation (hereinafter referred to as “the letter of delegation of this case”) stating that “the right of representation with respect to the commission of the preparation of authentic deeds shall be accompanied by the letter of delegation accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression of the principal.” Accordingly, the letter of delegation issued on June 16, 2006 by the law firm as the defendant’s agent and the plaintiffs shall be delegated

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence No. 1, and the result of this court's inquiry and reply to the legal document

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. The plaintiffs' arguments (i) did not borrow KRW 9.9 million stated in the notarial deed of this case from the defendant, and further, they did not delegate their authority to prepare the notarial deed of this case to the defendant and did not grant their authority to the defendant by issuing a certificate of personal seal impression. Thus, the execution based on the notarial deed of money loan contract of this case should be denied.