1. The Defendant’s notary public C office against the Plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 89 on February 14, 2012, No. 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. D and E entrusted a notary public C on February 14, 2012, D and the Plaintiff’s representative, and E entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed as a joint and several surety.

B. On February 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 60 million to D on May 14, 2012 as the due date for payment; (b) the Plaintiff and E stand joint and several suretys the foregoing loan obligations; and (c) the notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 89 of the certificate of February 14, 2012 issued by a notary public C office purporting to recognize compulsory execution in the event that the Plaintiff and E fail to perform a monetary obligation under a monetary loan agreement for consumption.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion D prepared the instant notarial deed as the Plaintiff’s representative, although there is no power of representation.

The instant notarial deed is subject to non-permission of compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed.

3. Determination

(a) Indication of the recognition and recognition of execution, which allows a notarial deed to have executory power as an executory title, is an act of litigation against a notary public, and when a notarial deed has been prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative, it shall not be effective

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803 Decided March 24, 2006, etc.). The burden of proof as to the existence of the right to make a notarial deed is to the creditor who asserts its effect. The establishment of the authenticity of the portion directly made by a notary public of a notarial deed is presumed, but it does not necessarily mean that the fact that a notary public of a notarial deed is merely entrusting the preparation of a notarial deed and that the agent has a legitimate right to represent.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da42047, Feb. 22, 1994).

We examine whether the Plaintiff granted the power of representation to D to prepare the notarial deed of this case.

1. The plaintiff's notarial deed of this case is a notarial deed of this case with the purport of the whole pleadings added to each statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 3.