1. The defendant's 205 deed No. 4118 dated November 24, 2005 prepared by a notary public against the plaintiff, and a notary public against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, father C was bound by the fact that monetary damage was inflicted on the Defendant.

B. On November 24, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Donman D entered into a debt repayment contract with the Defendant on the same day, and approved that the debt amount is KRW 45 million under an agreement with the Defendant. On December 31, 2005, repayment of KRW 5 million was made on June 30, 2006, KRW 25% per annum, and delayed payment, delayed payment of the debt amount. If delayed payment of the installment payment, the repayment contract was made on the same day with the Defendant, and confirmed that the debt repayment contract was concluded with the Defendant on the same day, and if the payment was not carried out, the notarial deed was made by commissioning the Defendant with the statement on the text of recognition that there was no objection thereto (hereinafter “notarial deed”). The notarial deed was made on the same day.

At the time, the Plaintiff was a minor (E) and the mother was dead, and the legal representative’s consent was submitted when entrusting the preparation of the Notarial Deed in this case.

C. On September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff sent to a credit information company delegated by the Defendant a certificate of content that contains a declaration of intent to revoke the agreement, and thereafter reached the said company at that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff’s entrustment of the instant debt repayment agreement and the instant notarial deed was merely obtained from Nice D’s consent, and did not obtain the consent of the net C, which is a legal representative, and thus becomes null and void, or is null and void as an unfair act. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought non-permission of compulsory execution under the instant notarial deed.

B. First of all, we examine whether an unfair conduct is unfair.