1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is an executory exemplification of a notarial deed No. 2032, 2008.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 14, 2008, Nonparty D, the Plaintiff’s mother, borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant from the Defendant, and attached the power of delegation and certificate of personal seal impression in the name of the Plaintiff, and the notary public drafted a notarial deed No. 2032 of the Clegal Office No. 2008 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On October 28, 2008, Nonparty D prepared a power of attorney with the Plaintiff’s name in order to prepare the instant notarial deed and received a certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression as the Plaintiff’s agent at the Busan Southern-gu Edong Office.

C. On November 14, 2008, the Plaintiff voluntarily prepared the power of attorney in the name of Nonparty D and submitted it to Nonparty C’s staff to Nonparty C’s Office, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Nonparty D under the name of the crime of forging private documents and exercising the same. Nonparty D was found to have been guilty on September 29, 2010, but was subject to suspension of indictment, taking into account the fact that Nonparty D was the first offender, and that it was caused by contingent crimes to obtain a loan.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to each of the above facts of recognition, the notarial deed of this case was prepared to confirm the defendant's obligation to the defendant, and the entry of the plaintiff who does not have any obligation relationship with the defendant as the principal debtor on the notarial deed of this case is invalid because it was merely made by the non-party D without the plaintiff's consent or legitimate power of attorney, and it is invalid, and there is no obligation of the plaintiff on the notarial deed of this case to the defendant. Thus, execution against the plaintiff on the notarial deed of this case against

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.