1. The defendant's writing C Office of notary public who belongs to Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff was prepared in 2010 No. 2059.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 12, 2010 at the request of D (the mother of the Plaintiff) who represented the Plaintiff, a notarial deed stating that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally and severally guarantee by setting the amount of KRW 350 million from the Defendant on September 20, 2009 at the maturity of September 20, 201, and at the rate of interest and delay damages at 30% per annum on September 20, 201” (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) was prepared as follows: (a) on September 20, 2010, a notary public office of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, which belongs to the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, set the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant as the guarantee period of KRW 10 years and the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt amount of KRW 350,000,000.”

B. On September 23, 2011, the Defendant transferred a loan claim under the instant notarial deed to E, and around that time, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the above loan claim against the Plaintiff by means of preparing and attaching a letter of assignment of claims stating, “The Defendant, a creditor on the instant notarial deed, transfers to E all the rights and rights that he/she may exercise to the Plaintiff, who is the debtor on the instant notarial deed, and does not claim the rights and rights of the instant claim, and does not claim it in good faith, and will delegate all the rights to the said E

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's loan claims against the plaintiff by the notarial deed of this case were extinguished by the transfer of claims. Thus, the execution of the above notarial deed should be excluded.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant authentic deed was not repaid, and that the assignment of claims between the Defendant and E was null and void as it was by deception. However, as long as the assignment of claims was made as seen earlier, the Defendant’s above loan claim against the Plaintiff regardless of whether the Plaintiff was repaid or not shall be extinguished.