채무부존재확인
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 reasons why the trial of basic facts in this part is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "creditor interest debtor" is used as "Plaintiff and defendant", and "creditor interest debtor" in Section 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "Plaintiff and defendant". Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. 1) The validity of the notarial deed in this case is that the indication of the recognition of execution, which allows the notarial deed to have executory power as a title of debt, is an act against a notary public. Thus, when a notarial deed is made by a commission of an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as a title of debt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45303, 45310, Feb. 23, 2001). Such an act of litigation may not be applied or applied by analogy the expression agency provision in the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu621, Feb. 8, 1983). 2) The plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed did not delegate I to the notarial deed in this case, so
According to the purport of the testimony of witness I of the first instance court, the defendant's examination result of the first instance court, and the whole pleadings, when the plaintiff entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, I merely entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case after confirming the proxy on which the plaintiff's seal impression is affixed and the certificate of personal seal impression issued by the plaintiff himself, and the plaintiff did not directly meet or delegate the notarial deed of this case, the plaintiff was not present at the time of preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and the defendant was not present at the time of preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and the fact that the notarial deed of this case was issued by the plaintiff in the course of transaction of the notarial deed of this case.
According to the above facts, the contract for sale in lots is concluded to C, which the plaintiff acquired the house subscription passbook under the name of the plaintiff, using the name of the plaintiff.