A. On October 24, 2006, a notary public drafted a money loan contract No. 3393 in an amount of KRW 100 million, maturity of payment on August 24, 2007, interest rate of KRW 60%, Defendant, obligor, E, and joint and several sureties (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On November 21, 2018, the Defendant applied for a collection order of the deposit claim, etc. that the Plaintiff possessed against the financial institution as the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch 2018TTT 11501, based on the instant No. notarial deed. On November 22, 2018, the said court rendered a decision to seize and collect the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The notarial deed of this case is prepared by Nonparty E as an unauthorized agent without obtaining the power of representation from the plaintiff, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should not be permitted.

② Furthermore, the ten-year extinctive prescription for the instant claim on the notarial deed has already expired.

3. Determination

A. (1) According to the reasoning of the argument: (a) the statement of No. 4, the witness E’s testimony and the overall purport of the argument, Nonparty E is the criminal facts that: (b) forged a loan agreement under the Plaintiff’s name and exercised it on December 15, 2006 without the Plaintiff’s permission; and (c) April 3, 2007 and the same month.

4. Criminal facts that forged and exercised a certificate of seal imprint under the Plaintiff’s name without the Plaintiff’s permission, and criminal facts that forged the Plaintiff’s name and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal on the joint and several surety column of the short-term limit loan agreement on April 17, 207, without the Plaintiff’s permission, are subject to criminal punishment for the crime of forgery. The date of preparation of the notarial deed and the date of the above crime are similar to that of the notarial deed, the fact that the Plaintiff was not present at the site, and Nonparty E stated that the notarial deed was prepared by using the Plaintiff’s identification card without the Plaintiff’s consent in this court.