A. On December 27, 2011, D, on behalf of the Plaintiff, drafted and issued a notarial deed stating that “The Plaintiff and E, F, G, and D bear a total of KRW 208,00,000 on behalf of the Defendant, shall be paid by January 22, 2012, and interest shall be determined by 30% per annum” (No. 12234, 201, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On October 29, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of real estate ownership against the International Trust Co., Ltd. with the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case as the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's gist of the plaintiff's assertion argues that "The notarial deed of this case is invalid since it was made by D without the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff does not bear the defendant's obligation under the notarial deed of this case. Even if the plaintiff is liable to pay the defendant's obligation under the notarial deed of this case, since the debtor's obligation under the notarial deed of this case is five (the plaintiff, E, F, G, and D), it shall be borne only by 1/5."

3. The indication of recognition and recognition of execution, which allows judgment to have executory power as a title of debt, is an act of litigation against a notary public, so in case where a notarial deed is prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as a title of debt, and the burden of proof as to the existence of power to prepare such notarial deed has the effect of proof on the creditor

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s director at the time of preparing the notarial deed of this case is insufficient to deem that D had the power of attorney to prepare the notarial deed of this case on the sole basis of the fact that D had the right of attorney to prepare the notarial deed of this case.