1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff Company: (a) drafted an agreement on loans with D, I, J, and J, jointly and severally liable for each restaurant, as a condition of alcoholic beverage transaction; and (b) lent KRW 4,00,000 to D, I, and J on November 14, 2014; and (c) drafted an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement (No. 130, 200,000,000 on February 19, 2014 by a notary public, who is a notary public, for the purpose of lending KRW 4,00,00,00 in money (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed 1”).

B. On October 21, 2013, Plaintiff B prepared a notarial deed (No. 4592, 2013; hereinafter “second notarial deed”) with respect to promissory notes in the face value of KRW 21,440,000 issued by D, J and D, and J, and prepared a monetary loan agreement with respect to promissory notes in which a notary public becomes liable for reimbursement of KRW 50,000,000 on December 31, 2013 and the amount of KRW 24 per annum (24%) and the amount of KRW 50,00,000 on December 31, 2013 were set as due date for reimbursement of KRW 31,204, and the amount of interest shall be 24% per annum.

C. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) set the due date of repayment of KRW D and KRW 150,000,000 as 6% per annum; and (b) lent the lease deposit to D to D for the performance of the said obligation; and (c) drafted a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement on security for collateral transfer for collateral transfer (No. 38, 2015, No. 2015, a notary public takes over KRW 150,000 among the lease deposit refund claims against D for the first and second floors in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant lease deposit refund claim”); and (d) written a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

Plaintiff

B, on October 6, 2014, by Suwon District Court 2014TT22503, the amount of KRW 21,440,000 based on the original copy of the notarial deed was the claim amount and received the attachment and collection order as to the claim to return the lease deposit against D, and submitted the application for cancellation of the attachment collection to the above court on February 9, 2015.

E. As to the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case, the attachment and assignment order of the claim, the attachment and collection order of the claim, and the provisional seizure order of the claim were issued to L.