1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Cases of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution, which are the High Government District Court 2018 Chicago5062.

1. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the instant claim

A. On October 28, 2016, a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) written by the Plaintiff, D, and E, stating a statement to the effect that compulsory execution will be accepted in cases where the Plaintiff, D, and E issue each promissory note of KRW 553,140,00 at face value with the Defendant as the addressee, and the due date on September 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) and delay in the payment thereof.

B. However, there is no fact that the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes to the Defendant, as well as there is no delegation of authority on the issuance of promissory Notes and the preparation of authentic deeds by anyone D, E, etc., so compulsory execution based on the authentic deed of this case must be rejected.

C. On July 2, 2018, D completed the registration of transfer of ownership on six houses among six multi-household houses (the total value is at least 1,729,00,000 won) on the ground of Goyang-gu G in Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-gu, U.S. as the Defendant’s husband to F, who is the Defendant’s husband, and thus, D terminated the obligation of the Promissory Notes by accord and satisfaction.

The Plaintiff, D, etc. paid KRW 1,290,660,000 to the Defendant on October 31, 2016, and KRW 20,00,000 on January 25, 2017, and KRW 40,660,000 on April 10, 2017. The obligation of the Promissory Notes was preferentially repaid and extinguished in accordance with the legal doctrine on the appropriation of performance (the obligation of the Promissory Notes shall be preferentially appropriated for the obligation of the Promissory Notes with a large amount of profit to the obligor).

E. The Plaintiff set off the claim of the Promissory Notes against the Defendant with the claim for the sale price (518,371,517 won) owned by D, which is another joint and several liability with respect to the Promissory Notes of this case.

2. Determination

A. (i) The Notarial Deed of this case was executed in the capacity of the issuer and the drawer of the Promissory Notes of this case as well as in the capacity of the issuer. At the time D’s power of attorney (No. 3-2) presented to the notary public, all the powers of the notary public to commission D to prepare the No. notarial Deed of this case.