A. The Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff’s mother, has been doing monetary transactions since around 2010 with the Defendant.

B. Upon the Defendant’s request for security, C issued to the Defendant a promissory note with the Plaintiff’s seal affixed thereon, which read “the Plaintiff, the face value of KRW 5 million, the issue date, November 19, 2010, and January 19, 201” (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

C. On November 22, 2010, the Defendant, as a notary public, prepared, in the form of a law firm, a promissory note No. 1 in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the agent of the obligor and the obligor as the obligee and the Defendant’s agent (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that C has the plaintiff's seal impression, identification card, etc., without any authority, entered the plaintiff as the issuer of the Promissory Notes in this case and delivered it to the defendant, and thus, the notarial deed of this case is null and void. Even if the notarial deed of this case is valid, since the defendant's claim, which was the basis of the notarial deed of this case, was extinguished by C's repayment, the execution based on the notarial deed of this case, should not be denied. The defendant's assertion 2) The defendant asserts that the notarial deed of this case is valid since the plaintiff granted the plaintiff's mother's power to prepare the

B. Determination 1) The burden of proving the existence of the power of attorney to prepare a notarial deed exists on the creditor who asserts its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114, Jun. 28, 2002). The seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint are merely one material that can recognize the power of attorney, and thus, each right of attorney to issue a bill or to request the preparation of a notarial deed.