2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s East C, on behalf of the Plaintiff and D, issued, on December 5, 2014, a promissory note with a face value of KRW 240 million at the face value, and on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, the issuer, D, C, the place of payment of the place of payment and the place of payment, and at the same time commissioned the Defendant to prepare a notarial deed. On the same day, when a notary public delays the payment of the said promissory note amount under Article 1062 of the Multisour Deed 2014, a notarial deed to recognize that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant, with the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case, received a seizure and collection order as the court 2015TT9153 regarding the Plaintiff’s wage claim against E Co., Ltd. as the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's assertion does not include the fact that the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant. The notarial deed of this case was made by using the plaintiff's seal impression and a certificate of seal impression without the plaintiff's right to make preparation by Dong C, so compulsory execution with the title of execution should be denied. 2) The summary of the defendant's assertion that the notarial deed of this case was legally prepared by C on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is liable for the promissory note payment concerning the notarial deed of this case.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff granted a legitimate power of representation to commission C to prepare the instant authentic deed, in light of the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, fact inquiry results against law firms and the entire purport of oral argument:

Therefore, C is based on the premise that it entrusted the preparation of the Notarial Deed without the authority to act for the plaintiff.