1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs that verify the existence below.

The reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the parts which are dismissed or added in paragraph (2) below and those which are additionally determined in paragraph (3) above, and therefore, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is. Of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, part which is dismissed or added in paragraph (2) above, “G” in paragraph (3) 15 is deemed “B”, “365 million won” in the first sentence of paragraph (2) is deemed “365 million won”, and “59 million won” is deemed “398 million won.”

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The fifth of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

"Lawsuit of demurrer" is aimed at excluding the executory power held by the executive title, and even if the judgment becomes final and conclusive, res judicata does not extend to the relation of rights under the substantive law which is the cause of the executive title.

Therefore, in a case where a debtor assumes an obligation against a creditor and prepares and prepares a notarial deed containing a statement of acceptance for compulsory execution, without filing a lawsuit of objection to the claim on the notarial deed, and files a lawsuit of confirmation of non-existence of an obligation concerning the obligation which is the cause of the preparation of the notarial deed, the mere fact that a lawsuit of objection against non-existence of an obligation may be filed only for the sole purpose is not excluded from the executory power of the notarial deed does not necessarily mean that a lawsuit of confirmation of non-existence of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10863 Decided May 9, 2013). Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of subparagraphs 4-2 and 3 of the evidence No. 4-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s seizure of corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiffs as the title of execution can be acknowledged that the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of demurrer to exclude the executory power of the said notarial deed, and at the same time filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of an obligation based on the notarial deed of this case. However, the above recognition alone is alone