The defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate property owned by the plaintiff as D with the Jeonju District Court on the real estate under the No. 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter referred to as the "No. notarial deed of this case").

B. The instant notarial deed includes the Plaintiff, the obligor, the Defendant, the obligee, and the obligor’s agents E, and the Defendant stated the purport of lending KRW 24 million to the Plaintiff as of July 31, 2013 by the due date for repayment.

C. In addition, the source related to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, the power of attorney against the defendant is stated as the source and the defendant's name is stated as the number, and the original and the defendant's seal is affixed to the name.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not delegate the issuance of the notarial deed of this case to E, and therefore, the notarial deed of this case is invalid as an executive title.

As to this, the defendant, while lending money to F who is the plaintiff's living together, received the power of attorney on the Notarial Deed of this case from F, that is, the plaintiff granted F the power of attorney on the preparation of Notarial Deed of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the Notarial Deed of this case is valid as being made by lawful delegation of the plaintiff.

B. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff delegated E or F the right to prepare the instant No. 1 through No. 3 merely with the statement of No. 1 to No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the instant No. notarial deed is prepared by the commission of the unauthorized Agent, and its executory power should be excluded.

(In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 7, F may recognize the fact that the power of attorney on the preparation of the No. 7 of this case has been forged and punished. 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is made.