A. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant received a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) from D as of October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff’s representative director E, the Defendant, and the due date. The Defendant and D, as of the same day, entrusted C with the preparation of a notarial deed stating the Plaintiff’s agent D’s issuance and signature and seal of the instant promissory note, and, if the payment of the said note is delayed, entrusted C with the preparation of a notarial deed stating the Plaintiff’s expression of no objection even if the Plaintiff is forced to enforce enforcement, as of the same day, as of No. 321, 2016 of the said notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

B. D was the Plaintiff’s intra-company director around July 1, 2016, and at the time the Plaintiff’s representative director was E.

D At the time of preparing the Notarial Deed on July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff’s representative director E (hereinafter “instant delegation”) and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression were possessed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s Promissory Notes and Notarial Deed are arbitrarily prepared or commissioned to be prepared by D without the power of representation. The Notarial Deed of this case is null and void, and compulsory execution based thereon must not be permitted.

B. Defendant 1) In light of the fact that D had the Plaintiff’s seal impression affixed to the instant letter of delegation and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, each letter stating that the Plaintiff is liable to pay taxes of KRW 110 million on investment profits of the Defendant, and that C notified the Plaintiff by law firm C, it can be deemed that D had the authority to prepare or commission the instant promissory note and the authentic deed on behalf of the Plaintiff.