1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2012, the Defendant’s agent and issuer’s agent “the Promissory Notes” are the Defendant, issuer network E, F, and date of issuance, February 10, 2012, and the due date of payment, payment at sight, and face value of 20,000,000.

No. 1253 of the 2012 No. 1253 of the 2012 No. 1253 of the notarial deed

On the same day, the instant notarial deed was prepared. B. After January 9, 2015, the network E died, and the Plaintiffs jointly succeeded to the said network E. [the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased borrowed KRW 3 million from the defendant. The defendant, using documents provided at the time of borrowing KRW 3 million by the deceased, forged the Promissory Notes (the amount arbitrarily stated) and completed the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the Promissory Notes of this case and the notarial deed of this case are all null and void, so compulsory execution should be dismissed.

B. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court of determination shall recognize the existence and content of the content as stated in the statement, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994). In general, it is an example that a part of the document is signed and sealed and delivered in an unsatisfy state. As such, since there is a blank blank part at the time of delivery of the document, and that it was supplemented ex post facto, the preparing person must prove that the content was supplemented

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da100923 Decided August 22, 2013). In this case, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 presumed to have been established by recognizing the fact that the plaintiffs affixed their seals.