1. The defendant's writing of C Office of Notary Public against the plaintiff;

(a) with executory power of heading 1637 of the deed 2014;

On December 10, 2013, as the Defendant borrowed and failed to repay the amount of KRW 100 million from the Defendant to use the money for gambling, the Defendant was drafted a quasi-loan contract for debt repayment of KRW 648,965,00 (hereinafter “instant gambling”) from D (No. 14877, 2013).

Around March 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) drafted a notarial deed of an additional contract as a joint and several surety (No. 1637), a joint and several surety (No. 1637) with the content that D would bear jointly and severally liable obligations for the instant gambling debt; (b) drafted a notarial deed of an additional contract as a joint and several surety (No. 1637) with the content that D would bear jointly and severally liable obligations for KRW 140,000 among the instant gambling debt (No. 1634, 2014), and that D would be jointly and severally liable for the instant notarial deed (No. 1634, 2014) with the content that D would be jointly and severally liable for KRW 16,400,000,000 among the instant gambling debt (No. 1634,200).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 17, 20, 21, and 23 evidence (including paper numbers), each entry of the whole pleadings, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the loan of money for the purpose of offering money for gambling is null and void as a juristic act against social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da2249, May 22, 1973). The loan contract for the loan of the gambling debts of this case, which was made for the purpose of using money for gambling, is null and void by a juristic act against social order, and the agreement for the loan of the gambling debts of this case is also null and void by a juristic act against social order. The order of the notarial deed is also contrary to the social order.