A. On January 26, 2011 and February 10, 2011, the Plaintiff’s mother C received KRW 100,000,000 from the Defendant as the due date for payment on February 25, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant investment agreement”). (b)

C On December 3, 2012, after having agreed with the Defendant to return the investment amount of C under the instant investment agreement as KRW 2,50,000,000,000. On the same day, the notary public, claiming that C is the representative of the Plaintiff, who is an son of C, was the Plaintiff’s agent, drafted the notarial deed of this case by requesting the Defendant to prepare a notarial deed of money loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “C shall borrow KRW 250,000,000 from the Defendant on December 3, 2012, 7% per annum, delay damages, 20% per annum, and due date, February 25, 2014.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that since the plaintiff did not grant C the power of attorney to commission the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, part of the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff is null and void as it constitutes an act of unauthorized representation. Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff of this case shall not be allowed.

B. The defendant's assertion that C had legitimate authority to represent the plaintiff at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and even if not, it is not so.

Even if at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, C had the Plaintiff’s power of attorney and certificate of personal seal impression as well as the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, and thus, C asserts that the portion of the notarial deed of this case against the Plaintiff is effective as against the Plaintiff under Article 125 of the Civil Act or the legal principles of expression

3. Determination

A. As to the cause of the claim A.