1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff has an executory power of No. 701, 2016, which was drafted with the law firm authority.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a registration contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration contract”) and began to serve as an insurance solicitor by the Defendant.

On the other hand, on January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared an agreement with Nonparty C on the payment and recovery of the settlement subsidy (hereinafter referred to as “instant settlement subsidy agreement”) with the Defendant on January 29, 2016, and received a policy subsidy of KRW 6 million in total from the Defendant.

B. On March 17, 2016, Nonparty D prepared and delivered the instant notarial deed to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding promissory notes with a face value of KRW 20 million issued by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”).

C. From August 2016, the Plaintiff did not act as the Defendant’s insurance solicitor, and around March 2017, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a certificate of content to the effect that he/she would dismiss himself/herself, and the Defendant treated the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor around June 2017.

In around 2017, the defendant applied for a collection order based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff's claim against Han Bank, etc.

E. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received a dividend of KRW 620,000 out of the proceeds of sale by seizing the corporeal movables of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s spouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 8, and 16 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Defendant, without any authority, prepared the notarial deed of this case using the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal imprint, the notarial deed of this case has no effect against the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the notarial deed of this case is valid, if the Plaintiff offsets the fee to be paid by the Defendant and the amount to be recovered by the Defendant’s assertion on an equal amount, there is no money to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and thus, the instant deed does not exist.