1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. It was true that the plaintiffs' assertion and the defendant made the notarial deed of this case by designating the plaintiff Gap as the debtor, the plaintiff Eul as joint and several sureties, and the defendant as the creditor. However, since the defendant did not lend the loan of 35 million won as stated in the above notarial deed to the plaintiffs, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should not be allowed.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant paid 35 million won as well as 2 million won to the plaintiff Eul, the creditor of the plaintiff Eul, at the plaintiff Eul's request. Thus, the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case is justified.

2. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, witness E’s testimony and arguments, E joined the Plaintiff’s operating fraternity, and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff B for fraud, etc. on July 1, 2016, by failing to receive KRW 57,80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 was paid from Plaintiff B as agreed money, and the Defendant paid 35,000,000,000,000 on behalf of Plaintiff B, and the Defendant prepared the Notarial Deed between the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant made the Notarial Deed on July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff B, Defendant, and E received 35,00,000,000 won from the Defendant and revoked the complaint, but Plaintiff B could not yield 37,7,000,000 won from the 37,000,000 won on the same day, the Defendant paid 1,6167,062,00,060,00.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant paid 35 million won or more as stated in the notarial deed of this case to the plaintiff B. Thus, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case is justified.

3. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.