A. As of December 28, 2006, a notary public drafted a money loan agreement No. 2306 of 2006 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the wife of the Plaintiff”) borrowed KRW 70 million from the Defendant on December 28, 2006, with the joint and several guarantee of Nonparty D, at the maturity of payment period of KRW 70 million from the Defendant on January 15, 2007, and at the rate of delay interest rate of KRW 25% per annum.”

B. As of May 31, 2007, a notary public, such as the Plaintiff and Nonparty D’s joint and several sureties, who borrowed KRW 70 million from the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 25% per annum, and on January 15, 2007, respectively, on December 28, 2006, the Notarial Deed of the Han-gu General Law Office No. 0848 of Han-gu Law Firm (hereinafter “No. notarial Deed of this case”) was prepared, and the said No. notarial Deed is written as a document of monetary loan loan contract No. 0848 of 2007 (hereinafter “No. notarial Deed of this case”), stating that the Defendant entrusted the preparation in the capacity of each agent of the Plaintiff and Nonparty D, the principal debtor of the obligee, the joint and several sureties, and the Plaintiff and Nonparty D, the joint and several sureties.

C. Meanwhile, based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant filed an application for the order of seizure and collection against the Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty Shepur Korea limited liability company, as the Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty Shepur Korea limited liability company, based on the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The seal imprint design and the seal imprint certificate are nothing more than one material that can recognize the power of representation, and therefore, they do not necessarily recognize the right of representation to enter into a monetary loan contract for transfer security on behalf of the debtor on behalf of the debtor, or to commission the preparation of a notarial deed on the above contract, and the burden of proof on the existence of power of representation exists

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da42195 Decided September 25, 2008, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.