1. The defendant's authentication against the plaintiffs is based on notarial deeds No. 857 of the 2012 No. 857 of the 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a business operator who operates a gas station with the trade name of “E”.

On June 20, 2012, the Defendant entrusted D with the preparation of a notarial deed of debt repayment contract in the capacity of the representative of the Plaintiff Company, Company F (hereinafter referred to as “F”), Plaintiff B and G, a joint and several surety, to a notary public, and the notarial deed listed in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) was written on the same day.

The defendant signed and sealed the notarial deed of this case as the joint and several sureties's agent.

B. The content of the instant notarial deed is that “The Plaintiff Company and F, a joint and several debtor, are liable to the Defendant for the unpaid oil payment amounting to KRW 285,542,561, and the Defendant is jointly and severally reimbursed KRW 100 million up to June 30, 2012, KRW 100 million up to July 10, 2012, KRW 85,542,561 up to August 10, 2012, and KRW 85,542,561 as well as KRW 10 million up to August 10, 2012.”

C. At the time the notarial deed of this case was prepared, H, G, the Defendant, and the Defendant’s husband I attended the said notary office.

H as a director of the J (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) of a company in which G is actually operated as an affiliate of F, the entire vehicles of the Plaintiff, the F, and the J were comprehensively managed. At the time, the Plaintiffs had each seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal impression received from the Plaintiffs.

On the other hand, by April 2012, the Plaintiff Company was unable to pay the Defendant an oil payment of KRW 99,424,731 to the Defendant. On May 23, 2012, the Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure against the Plaintiff Company, such as Nonghyup, against the Plaintiff Company by using it as a claim claim.

(C) The first instance court held that the first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court'