2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. Since the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, has the power of attorney affixed a seal of the Plaintiff’s name to the power of attorney, forged the power of attorney in the name of the Plaintiff, and commissioned the Plaintiff to prepare a notarial deed on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above power of attorney (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”), compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

B. Since the defendant, who is a credit service provider, is prohibited from commissioning the preparation of a notarial deed on behalf of the plaintiff, the notarial deed in this case is invalid.

C. The plaintiff only lent the borrower's name upon C's request, so the notarial deed of this case is invalid.

2. The judgment does not have any evidence to prove that the Defendant forged the power of attorney by deceiving the Plaintiff, and rather, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the Plaintiff delegated the authority to prepare a notarial deed as the Plaintiff’s representative on September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that, on the grounds of insufficient evidence on April 6, 2016, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant for forgery of a private document, use of a notarial document, fraudulent entry in the original notarial deed, and fraud of the notarial deed, with the purport that the Defendant forged the power of attorney in the name of the Plaintiff, caused the attorney in charge of notarial acts to prepare the original notarial deed by using the power of attorney in charge of notarial acts, and thereby, caused economic risks to enforce the Plaintiff’s apartment execution.

In addition, the statement of the evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is a credit service provider, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff only lent the name of the borrower upon request by C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is with merit.