1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is based on a notarial deed No. 432, 2017, which is a law firm master.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff lent the title of the building project to the title of the Plaintiff, and thereby, C registered its business under the name of the Plaintiff and obtained a building permit, and operated D and building business as a partnership.

C은 그 과정에서 샷시공사를 시행한 피고에 대하여 채무를 부담하게 되었고, 피고로부터 채무 독촉을 받자 변제기 연장을 위하여 약속어음을 작성, 공증해주기로 하였다.

B. On May 22, 2017, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff, the owner of which is the Plaintiff, be the issuer to notarized promissory notes, and C and D, without the Plaintiff’s consent, made a proxy form under the Plaintiff’s name that “all powers concerning the commission of preparation of authentic deeds are delegated to the Defendant” using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, which held on May 22, 2017 without the Plaintiff’s consent, and made a promissory note with the issuer as the Plaintiff, C, D, and E-4, and the payee as the Defendant with the face value of KRW 215,00,0

After that, C received a certificate of personal seal impression from the plaintiff on the 29th day of the same month, a notary public, through a certified judicial scrivener, entrusted the preparation of a promissory note notarial deed by delivering the said power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff and related documents, such as promissory note, to the attorney in charge of the notarial acts, and accordingly, a notarial deed as described in Paragraph (1) of the same day (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case").

C. The Plaintiff, who became aware of the establishment of the instant notarial deed, filed a criminal complaint against D and the Defendant.

As a result of the investigation, the defendant was subject to a disposition to suspect that there is insufficient evidence that the defendant conspireds to commit the crime, and C/D was prosecuted under the name of the plaintiff, a power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff, or a promissory note forgery and preparation of a notarial deed as above, and thus, C/D was charged with forging and uttering of private documents, fabrication and use of securities, forgery and use of the authentic deed, fraudulent entry

(In Incheon District Court 2018 High Court 2018 High Court 4229). [Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap 1,4.