A. On behalf of the Plaintiff, C, the former husband, entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed as to promissory notes (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) dated 21, 2014, the Plaintiff’s face value of which was KRW 20,000,000 as the issuer, which was July 21, 2014. Accordingly, C, on behalf of the Plaintiff, drafted a notarial deed of promissory notes No. 221, July 21, 2014 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. C, on behalf of the Plaintiff, entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed with respect to promissory notes (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) as of October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff’s face value of which was KRW 60,000,000, which was indicated as the issuer, and accordingly, the notarial deed No. 486 of the 2014 (hereinafter “notarial deed No. 2”).

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Evidence A No. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The notarial deed Nos. 1 and 2 of this case as the cause of the plaintiff's claim is invalid since C was entrusted without the power of representation from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the enforcement force should be excluded.

B. The Plaintiff has assisted C’s business, and during which process, the Plaintiff granted C the power of attorney to commission C with the preparation of Nos. 1 and 2 of this case.

3. Determination

A. The indication of recognition and recognition of execution that a notarial deed allows a notary public to have an executory power as an executory power is an act of litigation against a notary public, so it is not effective as an executory power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45303, 45310, Feb. 23, 2001) in a case where a notarial deed is prepared upon commission of an executory power agent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45303, 45310, Feb. 23, 2001). The burden of proving that such notarial deed has the power