청구이의
1. Certificates drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 5257, Nov. 7, 2012, 2012.
1. On November 7, 2012, a notary public who prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption provided that the Plaintiff was acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, the former Joint Law Office drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the Defendant, on November 6, 2012, specified KRW 25,00,000 as interest and delay damages at KRW 30% per annum, and due date for payment on November 6, 2013. The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation of C, and, if the said obligation is not performed, it was immediately recognized that there was no objection even if compulsory execution is performed.”
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C forged the power of attorney in the name of the Plaintiff without obtaining any authority from the Plaintiff, and submitted it to a notary public for the preparation of the instant notarial deed. As such, the part of the instant notarial deed that the Plaintiff guaranteed the above loan debt of C is null and void.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the defendant should not be permitted.
B. The Defendant’s assertion C was authorized to commission the preparation of the instant authentic deed on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Even if it is not so, the actual obligor under the notarial deed of this case is C’s mother and the Plaintiff’s wife, and D borrowed money on the notarial deed of this case from the Defendant with the intent to use the remainder of the purchase price of the apartment living together with the Plaintiff, who is the husband of the Defendant. Since the above borrowing act of D within the scope of ordinary household affairs authority, it is within the scope of ordinary household affairs authority, the Plaintiff bears joint and several liability against the Defendant.
Therefore, among the notarial deeds of this case, the part against the plaintiff is consistent with the substantive relationship.
3. First of all, as to whether the part of the Notarial Deed of this case against the plaintiff was commissioned by an unauthorized representative.