1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, it is recognized that the notary public prepared on October 31, 2003 the No. 1 of the No. 20469 of the deed from C to October 30, 2003 that the defendant sent 30 million won to the plaintiff on November 30, 2003, interest rate of 66% per annum, joint guarantor D and E with a fixed and lent 30 million won as the plaintiff's agent (hereinafter "the No. notarial deed of this case"). The plaintiff was not present at the time of the preparation of the above No. 1, and it is recognized that E was present at the plaintiff's agent.

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion did not delegate E with the preparation of the Notarial Deed.

The plaintiff issued to E a certificate of personal seal impression, three copies of resident registration, three copies of identification card, and power of attorney with respect to the business of accepting the capital of the farming association corporation, etc., and the plaintiff used the above documents to prepare the notarial deed without the plaintiff's permission.

The Plaintiff did not receive any money or fact that the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a letter of loan (No. 1) to the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant notarial deed has no effect on the Plaintiff, and it has reached the instant lawsuit with a view to seeking confirmation of the absence of a loan obligation of KRW 30 million based on the said notarial deed.

3. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant filed a request for auction of the corporeal movables owned by the plaintiff with the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case as G of the Daejeon District Court's execution office, and received KRW 101,360 on September 1, 201 (the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was aware of the auction of the said corporeal movables at the first date of pleading, but was unaware of who the creditor was the creditor. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was living in the complaint of this case and stated that the defendant could not have been able to respond even with the execution due to his life in the complaint of this case, the above argument is difficult to believe), and that the defendant stated that the notarial deed of this case as the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case, as the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District Court of 2017 Ta1252.