1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the plaintiffs as to the additional allegations in the trial of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) Plaintiffs, F, G, and the Defendant’s representative director E concluded a partnership agreement with a view to jointly operating the instant business on or around January 2014. At that time, the said partnership was established among the said partners. Thereafter, the said partnership borrowed KRW 149,00,00 from the Defendant to use for importing friendly Dolet sampling, and the Plaintiffs prepared the instant notarial deed on behalf of the said partnership on behalf of the said partnership. Therefore, the instant notarial deed is the said partnership’s obligation, and it is not the said association’s obligation, and thus, compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed should not be allowed. (2) The instant notarial deed is the obligation of the said association under the said notarial deed, and the Plaintiffs are liable for the amount equivalent to the investment ratio of said association.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution should be denied only for the portion exceeding KRW 22,350,300 for the plaintiff A, and KRW 17,880,240 for the plaintiff B, 12% for the plaintiff B.

3) The notarial deed of this case is prepared by the plaintiffs on behalf of the above association as requested by the defendant's representative director E, and is null and void as it constitutes an notarial deed. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed shall not be permitted. 4) The plaintiffs did not meet the demand of E and completed the notarial deed of this case. Thus, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed constitutes abuse of rights and thus, it shall not be permitted under

B. As to the first and second arguments, the following can be recognized by the health team, the basic facts mentioned above, the evidence mentioned above, the testimony of the witness F in the trial room, and the purport of the whole pleadings.