대여금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The judgment of the court of first instance No. 1 is justified.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 3th parallel parallel 4 to 8th parallel 3th parallel 4 of the judgment shall be followed as follows:
【According to the above facts, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of the extension of the statute of limitations on the claim for loans based on the instant 2 process certificate. Barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 22% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from April 21, 2012 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, as the loan amounting to KRW 250,000,000 and thereafter, to the date of full payment.
[Judgment]
3. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as Q himself granted the power of representation to Q on the change of the amount of debt and extension of the period of debt of the 1st process deed of this case, Q prepared the 2nd process deed of this case and arbitrarily changed the Defendant to the primary debtor, the Plaintiff cannot seek a loan payment against the Defendant based on the 2nd process deed of this case.
In light of the provisions of the Notary Public Act (Articles 27, 30, 31, and 38), which provides that a notary public’s document drawn up by a notary public shall necessarily be subject to the procedures such as the verification of a commissioned person or a commissioned person and the verification of his/her power of attorney, etc. before drawing up the document in order to secure the authenticity of the reported contents, and that a notary public’s signature and seal shall be affixed after drawing up the document (Articles 27, 30, 31, and 38), the probative value shall be denied without permission and it shall not be recognized as facts inconsistent with the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2046, Jun. 28, 1994). According to the overall purport of the statement and change in the evidence No. 1, loans claims on the No. 2 official document of this case.