A. On November 11, 2014, the Defendant issued a collection order on May 31, 2012 based on the Notarial Deed No. 922, 2012 (hereinafter “Notarial Deed”) No. 922, a notary public, for whom the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) was notarized, based on the No. 922, an notarial deed (hereinafter “No. notarial Deed”) at a face value of KRW 50 million, the date of issuance May 31, 2012, and August 30, 2012.

B. After being notified of seizure by the No. 3 debtor Nonghyup Bank, etc., the Plaintiff filed a complaint that the Plaintiff and the Defendant forged a promissory note in the Plaintiff’s name and a letter of delegation of authentic deeds.

C. C was indicted by the Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan1547 on the grounds that the instant promissory note and the notarial deed were forged, and the Defendant was subject to a disposition to the effect that there was no suspicion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Gap 5-1, 2, Eul 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not have any fact that the Plaintiff prepared and attached the instant promissory note and the notarial deed to the Defendant, and the seal affixed to the instant promissory note or the notarial deed is not based on the seal of the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserted that he lent money to the Plaintiff’s form C and received the instant promissory note and notarial deed. When the Plaintiff went to a notary office, he heard that the Plaintiff prepared all necessary documents and returned to the notary office, and presented the Defendant’s identification card to the notary public and entrusted him with the preparation of the instant notarial deed.

In the instant notarial deed, the notary public stated that the Plaintiff himself/herself was verified with the Plaintiff’s identification card, and that the instant promissory note and the notarial deed were either prepared by the Plaintiff or directly entrusted by the Plaintiff, in view of the circumstances where C did not raise any particular objection.

Not, however, a novels

Even if C represents the right of representation from the plaintiff.