1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 598, Jul. 22, 2016, No. 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 22, 2016, a notary public, at the commission of the Defendant and D, drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The Defendant loaned KRW 20 million to D on July 22, 2016, with the interest rate of KRW 27.9% per annum, and the due date for payment as until August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation to D, and the debtor and the joint guarantor immediately recognized that they did not object to compulsory execution if they fail to perform their monetary obligations under this contract.”

B. D was punished by the Plaintiff, and entrusted the preparation of the instant notarial deed as an agent of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The indication of the recognition and recognition of execution that a notarial deed allows a notary public to have an executory power as an executory power is an act of litigation against a notary public, so in case where a notarial deed is prepared upon a commission of an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as an executory power, and the burden of proof that there is an authority to prepare such notarial deed

The authenticity of the portion directly prepared by a notary public of a notarial deed is presumed to be established, but the facts which can be recognized by it are merely that the agent has entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed, and it is not naturally admitted that the agent has legitimate power of attorney.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114 delivered on June 28, 2002).

In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that D had the authority to commission the preparation of the Notarial Deed on behalf of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

D is subject to the plaintiff's punishment.