1. Promissory notes, No. 00370, Dec. 14, 2009, issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff by a notary public of December 14, 2009.

1. The fact that the defendant acting on behalf of the plaintiff on December 14, 2009, prepares a promissory note that the plaintiff pays KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant. As to this, the fact that a notary public received a promissory note No. 00370 (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case") under the law firm Jung-gu, 2009 may be recognized pursuant to the respective entries in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion does not bear the defendant's obligation of KRW 30,000,000. The defendant asserts that the defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff should be denied, since the notarial deed of this case was prepared at will without being delegated by the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that he was delegated by the plaintiff and prepared the notarial deed of this case.

3. The fact that the defendant had the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed in this case is not a dispute between the parties.

However, according to the respective statements and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 15, the plaintiff, the husband of Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who was known to the plaintiff, delegated the auction business on No. 2 under the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment house underground. The defendant was conducting the auction business as the plaintiff's representative from October 15, 2009 to June 9, 2010. Accordingly, the plaintiff prepared and issued the power of delegation and the certificate of personal seal impression as requested by the defendant or C from time to time, and delivered the certificate of personal seal impression to the defendant on December 10, 209. The defendant participated in the bidding on behalf of the plaintiff on Oct. 15, 2009 and received the highest bid on behalf of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was acting on behalf of the defendant on a series of procedures, such as delivery orders, and the plaintiff was acting on behalf of the plaintiff on Oct. 14, 2009, and the plaintiff on September 20, 2005.