1. The Defendant’s notary public C against the Plaintiff on September 2, 201, signed by the Defendant on September 2, 2011, in a notarial deed as an undertaking No. 108 of the 2011.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2010, the Plaintiff’s mother D used his account in the name of the Plaintiff, and on June 30, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. On September 2, 2011, D, while carrying the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal impression as the Plaintiff’s agent, D prepared a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at the Defendant and notary public’s office as “the issuer, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, and the date of issuance, February 27, 2012, and the face value 26 million won (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) on August 26, 2011, and entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed thereon. Accordingly, the C’s office document containing the content that “if the payment of a promissory note is delayed to the holder of the instant note, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if there is no compulsory execution” (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, witness D's testimony, and the result of fact inquiry by a notary public of this court against the law firm in the state of state, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not grant the right of representation to the Plaintiff D regarding the preparation of the Promissory Notes and Notarial Deed, but D voluntarily prepared the Promissory Notes and entrusted D with the preparation of the Notarial Deed. Thus, the Notarial Deed of this case is invalid, and compulsory execution based thereon must be denied.

B. The Defendant’s instant promissory note preparation and the commission of notarial deeds are governed by D, for which power of representation has been granted by the Plaintiff, so the notarial deed of this case is valid.

Even if the Notarial Deed was prepared by D’s unauthorized Representation, the Plaintiff is responsible for expressive representation, and the Plaintiff was notified of the preparation of the Notarial Deed and did not raise any objection thereto, so the act of unauthorized Representation was ratified.