A. The plaintiff and D are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 24, 2005.

B. On August 2, 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 60,000,00 as an obligor on July 1, 2016 by a notary public, with the content that “E borrowed on June 30, 2017, as an obligor, the payment period of KRW 60,000,000. The Plaintiff and F shall be a joint and several surety, and the Plaintiff and F shall have no objection thereto even if compulsory execution is carried out immediately in the event of nonperformance,” and ② on August 30, 2016, the notarial deed No. 371 of 2016 (hereinafter “first notarial deed”) and ② “G is a debtor, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40,00,000 on August 1, 2016, with the repayment period of KRW 31, 2017. The Plaintiff is a joint and several surety, and the Plaintiff shall be subject to compulsory execution immediately at the time of default.

“The notarial deeds No. 430 of the 2016 deed (hereinafter referred to as “the notarial deeds”) written in its content are held. In total, each of the notarial deeds of this case is held.

C. Each of the notarial deeds in this case is in the capacity of the respective debtor and joint and several sureties, and a notary public entrusted the preparation to the attorney-at-law belonging to the law firm C, and attached with the power of attorney prepared in the name of the plaintiff and the certificate of seal impression issued by the plaintiff. Each of the notarial deeds in this case and the power of attorney are affixed with the seal impression

Around August 2017, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the Seo-gu Incheon District and Building owned by the Plaintiff and filed for a compulsory auction on August 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant decision to commence the auction”) with the title of execution of each of the instant notarial deeds.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including the number, respectively), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that her husband D only issued a certificate of personal seal impression to D, E, and G because her husband D needed to do so, and that her husband granted the right of representation on the preparation of each of the instant notarial deeds and joint and several sureties.