1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 19, 2011, the Plaintiff and C requested the Defendant, who is an attorney-at-law in charge of authentication of law, to prepare a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff, the obligee, C’s children, and C as joint and several sureties, to the Defendant, the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication of law.

B. The Defendant prepared a notarial deed with the purport that the Plaintiff and C have verified their identity and delegated D with the authority to prepare a notarial deed by means of their identification cards, and that “D shall borrow KRW 120 million from the Plaintiff on September 19, 2013 and interest for arrears at 25% per annum between the Plaintiff and C and C on behalf of the Plaintiff and C, and as a joint guarantee within the limit of KRW 120 million, and if D and C fail to perform their monetary obligations, they shall immediately be subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

C. On November 4, 2015, as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Kadan57465, D asserted that the instant Notarial Deed was made up by the commission of C, an unauthorized representative, and filed an objection suit. The said court accepted D’s assertion on September 8, 2016, and rendered a judgment dismissing compulsory execution based on the instant Notarial Deed, and rendered a judgment dismissing compulsory execution based on the instant Notarial Deed.

Although the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2066958, the appeal was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In preparing a notarial deed as an attorney-at-law in charge of authentication, the defendant, despite the duty to strictly examine the existence of proxy authority of the client, does not properly examine the existence of proxy authority of C, the principal debtor D, at the time of preparing the notarial deed in this case.