executory power of a notarial deed prepared by commission of an unauthorized representative;

If there is a delay in the performance of the amount stated on the notarial deed of a promissory note, the declaration of intention that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted immediately, shall be the procedural acts against the joint law office or notary public, and such procedural acts shall not be applied or analogically applied to the said procedural acts. Therefore, a notarial deed prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative shall not be effective as a name of the debt, regardless of whether the joint law office and notary public believe that there is a power of attorney, as well as the creditor, and whether there is no justifiable reason to believe that there is a power of attorney.

Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act; Article 519 subparag. 3 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No.1279, Jun. 26, 1984)

Park Jong-young

Park Jong-chul

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (85 Gohap563)

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(We) The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff shall not be allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on a promissory note No. 7172 of the 1984 No. 7172 of the 1984.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

(Preliminary Claim) It is confirmed that a notary public of August 20, 1984 against the plaintiff against the defendant does not exist any obligation of KRW 5,800,000 based on a promissory note No. 7172 of the 1984 No. 7172 of the 1984 document.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second instances.

The court below's testimony which is acknowledged to have been made by the commission of the plaintiff's most notarial deed to the above notarial deed No. 1 (Certification of Promissory Notes), No. 3 (Certification of Seal Imprint), and No. 2 (No. 4) which are recognized to have been made by the testimony of the above notarial deed, the above notarial deed No. 3 (No. 5,800,000 won) as being signed by the above notarial deed, each of the above notarial deed No. 4 (Pledge) which is admitted to have been made by the testimony of the witness, the above notarial deed No. 1, the above notarial deed No. 3 (No. 5,00,000 won, and the above notarial deed No. 5,000,000 won, and the above notarial deed No. 1, etc. shall be issued to the plaintiff for the purpose of using the notarial deed to obtain the above notarial deed from the issuer of the above notarial deed, and all of them shall be issued as the above notarial note No.

According to the facts of the above recognition, the above promissory note No. 300, which was made by the commission of Nonparty 1, who did not receive any authority from the Plaintiff on the issuance of the said promissory note and the preparation of the authentic deed, is not effective in the name of the obligation against the Plaintiff.

2. Although the Plaintiff did not grant the right of representation to the Nonparty for the issuance of a promissory note and the preparation of a notarial deed on behalf of the Nonparty, the Defendant’s attorney held the Plaintiff’s seal impression when granting the Nonparty the right to make a notarial deed on behalf of the Nonparty, and the Plaintiff issued the Plaintiff’s seal impression at the time of the issuance of the said promissory note and the preparation of a notarial deed, and thus, the Defendant did not have any justifiable reason to believe that the said notarial deed is entitled to the issuance and the preparation of a notarial deed on behalf of the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the said notarial deed exceeds the power of attorney to make a notarial deed, the above notarial deed’s assertion that its effect extends to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal principles of an notarial deed, and thus, if there is delay in the payment of the amount stated in the said notarial deed on behalf of the Nonparty, the declaration of intention that no objection exists even if compulsory execution is made, it shall be deemed that the joint law office and the notarial deed’s notarial deed cannot be applied by analogy 286.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the Notarial Deed of this case is justified, and since the original judgment is just in accordance with this conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Kim Hun-Un (Presiding Judge)