beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s notary public against the Defendant, No. 1802, 2014, drafted on December 15, 2014, No. 1802.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is the head of an insurance agency’s branch, and around December 2014, paid KRW 10 million to D with subsidies to the Plaintiff’s mother-child who was employed as an insurance solicitor. Around December 15, 2014, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 1802, No. 1802, a joint law office, in order to receive subsidies if D’s work period is not sufficient or if insurance solicitation results are low.
B. The instant notarial deed is 10 million won in loan, 15 December 15, 2015, 2000 won in loan, and 20% in annual interest rate and delay damages rate, and the Defendant, debtor D, and joint and several sureties were the Plaintiff. The instant notarial deed was drafted by commission of D, the agent of the Defendant and the joint and several sureties.
C. Meanwhile, on December 12, 2014, D obtained the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression as the Plaintiff’s agent, and presented the said certificate of personal seal impression and the power of attorney in the Plaintiff’s name at the time of preparing the instant notarial deed.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's mother D forged a power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff, received a certificate of the plaintiff's personal seal impression as proxy without permission, and based on this, the notarial deed of this case where the plaintiff is a joint and several surety, the plaintiff's joint and several liability against the defendant is nonexistent.
As to this, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression on behalf of the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression from the community service center. On December 16, 2014, the date following the preparation of the notarial deed by the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication, the Defendant did not raise any objection even though he was notified by registered mail of the fact that the notarial deed in this case was prepared by the proxy’s commission. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s preparation of the notarial deed in this case and