1. Promissory notes No. 50, 2015, signed on March 20, 2015 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff’s joint office of notary public against the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 4, the fact that, on March 20, 2015, a promissory note was issued as stated below, and accordingly, a promissory note No. 50 on March 20, 2015 was prepared as the joint office of B notary public No. 2015, and according to the above notarial deed, according to the entry of the above notarial deed, the non-party C entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed as the representative of the above three issuer and the payee (the defendant).

Par value: (1) 300 million won issuer: ① (2) A (Plaintiff) issuer: The date of issuance of new fluorial Co., Ltd. (Defendant): March 20, 2015: The date of payment: The place of issue at sight, the place of payment, and the place of payment: each Seoul Metropolitan Government.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff issued a seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal impression for the purpose of taking office as the representative director of the non-party company upon the request from the FF that actually runs the non-party company D (hereinafter “non-party company”) as the representative director on March 2015, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes or delegated the issuance of the instant

Therefore, the above notarial deed is an invalid notarial deed prepared by the commission of an unauthorized person, and the compulsory execution based on it is not allowed.

B. Since C who entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case to the defendant's arguments is a legitimate representative of the plaintiff, the above notarial deed is valid.

3. In light of the facts found below as to the issue, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) are sufficient to recognize that the above C had a legitimate authority to commission the preparation of the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, and no other evidence exists.

In other words, comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, witness C, G, F, and E’s testimony, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: ① on March 19, 2014.