1. As to the Defendant:

(a) No. 796, a notary public, of 2010, the 2010 Barun Law Firm (with limited liability);

1. Basic facts

A. On April 23, 2010, Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s mother, as the agent of the Plaintiff, lent KRW 796,00,000 to a law firm Barun Law Firm (with limited liability); ① The obligee leased KRW 20,000,00 to the obligor on April 23, 2010, and the obligor borrowed it. In the event the obligor and the joint guarantor fail to perform their monetary obligations under this contract, Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s mother, as the agent of the Defendant, the obligor, the joint guarantor, and the joint guarantor, was aware that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted. Nonparty C, the 2010 deed stating that “The obligee, the Plaintiff, the obligor, the joint guarantor, and the joint guarantor, C, the agent of the obligor and the joint guarantor, etc.” and ② leased KRW 90,00,000 on April 23, 2010, and the obligor borrowed it. The execution was not allowed even if the obligor and the joint guarantor did not perform their monetary obligations under this contract.

B. On July 2014, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for an explanation of property based on the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff did not delegate his/her authority to prepare the instant notarial deed to C, C prepared a proxy letter with the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and seal affixed to the Plaintiff and commission C to prepare the instant notarial deed, the instant notarial deed is null and void as it was written without any authority, and compulsory execution based on the notarial deed null and void should be denied.