1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm Dong-dong, March 31, 2005, No. 872.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 7-1 and 7-2 by integrating the purport of the whole pleadings:

On March 31, 2005, the defendant requested a notary public of the 1490-3 detailed building 5th floor of Busan Doo-dong 1490-3, Busan Doo-dong 1490-3 to prepare a notarial deed to the effect that "C borrowed 5,000,000 won from the defendant on March 25, 2005 and the interest calculated at the rate of 60% per annum, and the plaintiff shall pay the above loan debt to the defendant until May 30, 2005, and if C or the plaintiff fails to perform the above debt, a notary public shall immediately perform the compulsory execution, and on the same day, a notary public prepared a notarial deed of debt repayment (a quasi-performance agreement), No. 872 (hereinafter referred to as "quasi-notarial deed") under the Doo-dong 2005.

At the time of making a commission, the defendant submitted to the above attorney-at-law a letter of delegation in the name of the plaintiff affixed with the seal of the plaintiff and a certificate of the plaintiff's personal seal issued by proxy on the ground that the defendant received the power of attorney

B. On February 14, 2006, D, the Plaintiff’s mother, together with the Defendant, borrowed 8,00,000,000 won as the Plaintiff’s agent, a joint and several surety, from the law firm’s office, from the Plaintiff’s office in writing, to the Defendant on February 14, 2006, as the Plaintiff’s agent, a joint and several surety at the law firm office. The Plaintiff borrowed 8,00,000 won as the Defendant’s interest rate of 36% per annum and August 30, 2006. The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for the above borrowed money against the Defendant, and if D or the Plaintiff did not perform the above obligation, there is no objection immediately.