손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s new argument at the court of first instance to the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff asserts that, as the plaintiff did not have the authority to prepare the Notarial Deed on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not have the authority to prepare the Notarial Deed on behalf of the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the defendant KRW 70,000 to the defendant, and therefore, the defendant has the obligation to return the above KRW 70 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 2-2, Eul evidence No. 2-2, Eul evidence No. 3-2, Eul evidence No. 3-2, Eul evidence No. 8-2, Eul evidence No. 8-2, and the purport of some testimony and arguments of Gap and Eul as a whole: ① the power of attorney of the plaintiff as of October 23, 2007, which delegates the preparation of the notarial deed of this case to Eul, is accompanied by the certificate of personal seal impression issued by the plaintiff himself/herself on the same day; ② the notarial deed of this case was made on the same day; ③ the Eul testified that he/she received the above certificate of personal seal impression at the request of the plaintiff as necessary to borrow money; ④ The defendant was one of the companies known to the defendant as Maco Co., Ltd., which did not have the authority to do so. The defendant's statement was written with the purport that "No. 70 million won was stated in the above notarial deed, and that the plaintiff did not pay interest to Eul."