A. The Defendant received a collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2014TTT 4558), based on a bill No. 695 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) prepared by a notary public on November 17, 2008, with respect to the Plaintiff’s wage claim, based on a notarized bill No. 695 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. In the above notarial deed, D and the issuer’s agent as the defendant, and the issuer and the issuer’s agent as to the attached promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) respectively are written as the defendant, and D, the plaintiff, and the payee are also written as the defendant, and the Plaintiff and the plaintiff delegate all their authority to entrust the preparation of the instant notarial deed to the defendant (hereinafter “the instant letter of delegation”) and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression issued on October 7, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Evidence No. 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff did not delegate his authority to the defendant to prepare the notarial deed of this case.

Around October 28, 2008, the promissory note of this case and the letter of delegation of this case, the Plaintiff delegated E with the authority to mortgage the Plaintiff’s real estate and kept the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression, and the certificate of personal seal impression. However, E without the Plaintiff’s consent, stated the Plaintiff’s name in the issuer column of the promissory note of this case and the letter of delegation of this case, and affixed the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression.

Therefore, since the above notarial deed was prepared by the commission of the defendant who is an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as an executive title.

B. The Plaintiff delegated the authority to prepare the Promissory Notes and the power of attorney to Defendant E, which is based on the legitimate authority of attorney.