A. On March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff’s mother C confirmed the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 48,00,000 as to KRW 48,00,000, and confirmed the power of attorney, stating that the Plaintiff delegated the Defendant to prepare and commission a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant power of attorney”). However, C affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression on the instant power of attorney, and around that time, C placed the Plaintiff’s seal impression on behalf of the Plaintiff on March 14, 2013.

B. On March 15, 2013, the Defendant presented the instant power of attorney and entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Busan Dong-dong, Law Firm, and on the same day, the obligee as the Defendant, the debtor as C, and the joint guarantor as the Defendant, the notarial deed under the Debt Repayment Contract No. 422 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (in the case of additional documentary evidence, including serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of and judgment on the party's assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) although there was no fact that the Plaintiff delegated the Defendant with the authority to commission the preparation of the instant authentic deed, C forged the instant power of attorney with the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression on behalf of the Plaintiff to commission the Defendant to prepare the authentic deed, although C did not have delegated the Defendant with the authority to commission the preparation of the authentic deed.

Therefore, since the notarial deed of this case is null and void by the commission of an unauthorized representative, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should not be permitted.

(2) The summary of the defendant's assertion was prepared in the course of borrowing funds for the restaurant business from the defendant while the plaintiff operates the restaurant in partnership with C, and therefore the plaintiff lawfully entrusted the defendant with the preparation of the notarial deed of this case through C.