청구이의
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, defendant hereinafter "the defendant") shall be democracy in law firm against the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant, hereinafter "the plaintiff").
1. On November 28, 2012, the fact that: (a) on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D, the Defendant: (b) entrusted a notarial deed on a money loan contract with the intent of accepting compulsory execution on behalf of the Plaintiff, the obligor B, the obligor D, A, the principal and joint guarantor; and (c) signed by the notarial deed No. 1021, stating the intent of accepting compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed”) on behalf of the parties is not a dispute between the parties.
2. It is recognized that the defendant himself/herself prepared the “A” portion of the evidence No. 1 (Delegation) in the judgment on the main claim.
Therefore, the defendant must prove that the proxy agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency agency.
However, in the instant argument, the Plaintiff stated that “D is needed for the Plaintiff’s business, and the Plaintiff removed the certificate of personal seal impression.”
B. The Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and resident registration certificate are insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff granted the Plaintiff the right to represent the instant notarial deed commission to D solely on the ground that D participated in the Plaintiff’s certificate.
However, the defendant asserts to the effect that the certificate of seal impression issued to D is valid in accordance with Article 126 of the Civil Act since the plaintiff's act of granting basic power of attorney.
However, since a declaration of acceptance of compulsory execution is an act of litigation against a notary public, the defendant's assertion of expression representation cannot be accepted because the provision of expression representation concerning judicial act cannot be applied.
Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution procedure based on the Notarial Deed of this case is rejected.
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. Since the Plaintiff asserted to grant the power of representation granted D the power of representation to D to prepare the evidence Nos. 4 (Monetary Loan Contract Document) and D prepares a monetary loan contract document with the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is a joint and several surety, and thus, the Plaintiff is a joint and several surety.