1. The Defendant’s KRW 110,000,000 to the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from October 1, 201 to October 13, 2014, respectively.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 110 million to the plaintiffs on April 29, 201, and on September 30, 2011, which is worth KRW 10 million on the payment date, and on September 30, 201, a notary public issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 460 on the law firm’s free will and notarized the fact that he/she accepted compulsory execution as of April 29, 2011. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 110 million and the following payment date from October 1, 2011 to October 13, 2014, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, at the rate of interest rate of KRW 5% per annum per annum and 20% per annum per annum under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the above promissory note notarial deed was invalid since it was written by the plaintiff's deception, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.