1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The fact that the Plaintiff prepared a lease contract (Evidence B(Evidence 1) with the Defendant on September 30, 2015 does not conflict between the parties.

B. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1-1, Nos. 2, 3, and 5-1, 2, 3, and 5

(A) No. 5 of the Promissory Notes 1-2 attached to the evidence No. 1-2 does not conflict with the part of the Defendant’s seal impression, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. The Defendant has a defense to the effect that each of the above evidence was forged, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it). (i) A lease agreement entered into with the Defendant on September 30, 2015 with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(D) The Defendant paid the price for the purchase of leased articles at the request of the above lease agreement and the Plaintiff to E to sell leased articles.

3) Meanwhile, on October 1, 2015, F, an employee of the Defendant, kept a certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the Plaintiff himself/herself on September 30, 2015 and visited the law firm (with limited liability) C office with a certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the Songpa-gu Seoul Gdong community service center, and on the same day, a notary public visited the law firm (limited liability) C office as of October 1, 2015, on which the indication of the recognition of compulsory execution of the said Promissory Notes as of October 1, 2015 was written (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

was drawn up.

Plaintiff’s assertion

and Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed in this case is invalid as a result of an unauthorized representation, since he did not confer the power of attorney on the preparation of the notarial deed in this case.

B. We examine the following circumstances, namely, ① the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant on September 30, 2015, which was acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts and evidence as seen earlier, is also recognized by the Plaintiff, and ② The F, an employee of the Defendant, at the time of the preparation of the instant notarial deed.