Plaintiff

A, on October 21, 2016, a notary public issued a certificate of Djoint Law Office No. 1462, the Plaintiffs’ face value of KRW 240,000,000, and a promissory note stated as the Defendant. The Plaintiffs prepared a notarial deed stating that the compulsory execution of the said Promissory Notes is recognized, and issued it to the Defendant.

Plaintiff

A, as of March 6, 2017, at No. 350 of the same law office document No. 2017, the interest and delay damages amounting to KRW 400 million from the Defendant shall be 25% per annum, and the loan shall be made without fixing the due date, and the obligation of the loan shall be jointly and severally guaranteed by the Plaintiff B, and the Plaintiffs prepared a notarial deed stating the declaration of intent to recognize the compulsory execution of the above loan and the obligation of joint and several liability (hereinafter referred to as “the second execution deed”) and delivered

The certificate of execution Nos. 1 and 2 includes the purport that the plaintiff A acts on behalf of the plaintiff, and the power of attorney prepared in the name of the plaintiff B and the certificate of personal seal impression are attached thereto, and each of the above execution deed and the power of attorney are affixed with the seal impression of the

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiffs' assertion as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same) and the assertion as to the assertion as to the assertion as to an unauthorized representation of the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap's assertion as to Gap's assertion as to the purport of Gap's 1, 2, and No. 1 and No. 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same), although the plaintiff Gap did not confer the power of attorney as to the preparation of

Therefore, the part concerning the plaintiff B in each of the above execution certificates is null and void, and compulsory execution against the plaintiff B based on each of the above execution certificates must be rejected.

Judgment

In full view of the respective statements and images of evidence Nos. 3 and 30, witness E and F, and the overall purport of the arguments, the plaintiff A had no authority to act for the plaintiff B at the time when the execution document Nos. 1 and 2 was prepared.

or the defendant.