1. The defendant's law firm identical to the defendant's law firm on March 15, 2006 entered into a monetary loan agreement No. 389 dated 2006.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 2006, D, as the representative of the plaintiffs, borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the plaintiffs to the same notary public of the law firm as the defendant on March 13, 2006. The maturity date is June 13, 2006, interest and delay damages shall be set at the rate of 66% per annum, and if the above borrowed money is not repaid, it was commissioned to prepare a notarial deed of a money loan contract to the effect that the above borrowed money shall be immediately subject to compulsory execution. On the same day, as of March 15, 2006, the notarial deed of a money loan contract for consumption (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") was prepared and issued to the defendant as the notarial deed of a money loan for consumption as of March 15, 2006.

B. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant requested a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the financial institution, using the Notarial Deed as the title of execution, and received an order of seizure and collection as the Incheon District Court’s 2014TT2754.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. As to the plaintiff B's assertion, although there is no fact that the plaintiff Eul entrusted D with the authority to prepare and entrust the Notarial Deed of this case, the above Notarial Deed of this case is null and void because it is an unauthorized representative's request for the preparation of Notarial Deed of this case, and therefore compulsory execution based on the above Notarial Deed of this case should be denied. 2) The indication of the recognition of execution that the Notarial Deed of this case can have executory power as a title of debt is a litigation against a notary public, so a notarial deed of this case is not effective as a title of debt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803, Mar. 24, 2006). The burden of proof as to the fact that the Notarial Deed of this case has an executory power to prepare the Notarial Deed of this case is an obligee who asserts its effect, and it is a notarial deed of this case.