1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added as follows. Thus, it is identical to the part concerning Plaintiff A among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. On April 2016, 2016, “No. 115 of 2007” in Part 3, paragraph 16 of the same section, “No. 115 of 2007” shall be deemed to be “Entrustment of Preparation of No. 5 of No. 8 of the No. 2007 Certificate”, and the “No. 10 of the 10th page “F 10” shall be deemed to be “from April 19, 2016, the next day of service” (Article 748(2) of the Civil Act) from April 19, 2016 to “from April 20, 2016 to “from April 20, 2016” in Part 12 of the Civil Act, “from April 20, 2016 to”.

3. The addition;

(a)in respect of compulsory execution of paragraph 4(c), the following shall be added:

Under paragraph 20 of the fourth 20th, "No. 3, 2015: the No. 2015. 3. 3. 201," added "No. 4:6. 3, 2015. : the No. 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 2010. 3rd 2016."

(b)in Chapter 9, the following shall be added to the following:

The defendant asserts that, around December 2014, the No. 2014, the defendant filed a complaint with the defendant at the port north-gu Police Station of the Republic of Korea and received the investigation of a false horse detection devices, and that the defendant made a false assertion to the effect that he/she would be exempted from her husband's obligations even in this lawsuit. However, at the time, B's complaint stated that "the defendant did not actually borrow money after the establishment of the No. notarial Deed, but carried out compulsory execution based on the above No. notarial Deed," which is the main issue of the instant case, "no direct relationship exists with B whether the plaintiff granted the right to representation regarding the commission of preparation of the No. notarial Deed to B."

4. As a result, the plaintiff A's primary claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining primary claim is without merit.