A. Whether or not a notarial deed has been executed at the request of an unauthorized representative (negative)

(b) Effective date of payment in kind by the transfer of real estate ownership;

A. In order for a notarial deed to have an executory power as a title of debt, it must be "in the case of stating immediate compulsory execution", and such indication of executory power is a procedural act against a joint law office or notary public and such procedural act cannot be applied or applied mutatis mutandis under the Civil Act. Thus, a notarial deed drawn up upon a commission of an unauthorized representative is not only the creditor, but also the joint law office or notary public is believed to have an executory power of attorney, but also the validity as a title of debt should be denied regardless of the existence of any justifiable reason.

(b) If the payment in substitutes intends to take effect for the extinguishment of an obligation, other benefits provided by the obligor in lieu of the original performance shall be realistic, and in such a case, if other benefits are to transfer ownership of real estate, it is insufficient to express the intention of the party concerned or deliver a certificate of the seal impression, and a registration shall be made

A. Articles 81 and 519 subparag. 3 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 125 and 126(b) of the Civil Act; Articles 186 and 466 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 63Da1389 delivered on September 7, 1965

Attorney Lee Byung-ho, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Na141 delivered on October 21, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

(1) Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above non-party 1 and the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the joint guarantor of the above defendant 1, the defendant 25,00,000 won and damages for delay as stated in the above agreement between the plaintiffs, and that the fact that the notarial deed of this case in which compulsory execution is cancelled is written is under the premise that there is no dispute between the parties, and that the above notarial deed of this case is prepared without any authority to represent the plaintiffs, and therefore, the above notarial deed of this case has no effect as to the plaintiffs, and therefore, it is proved that the above notarial deed of this case was prepared with authority to prepare the notarial deed of this case on June 17, 1981 on behalf of the above non-party 1 and the defendant, and that the above notarial deed of this case was prepared with authority to prepare the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiffs 1, 200,000 won and all the above notarial deed of this case were issued to the plaintiffs 181.

However, in order for a notarial deed to have an executory power as a title of debt (the proviso of Article 519 subparag. 3 of the Civil Procedure Act), it shall be a case where a notarial deed states a compulsory execution, and such declaration of executory power is a litigation against a joint law office or notary public and such litigation is not subject to or applicable to the provisions of the expression agency under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu621, Feb. 8, 1983). Therefore, a notarial deed prepared by commission of an unauthorized representative as well as a creditor of a joint law office or notary public is not believed to have an executory power, and the validity as a title of debt shall be denied regardless of whether there is no justifiable reason to believe that the above notarial deed does not have the authority to prepare the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiffs, while recognizing that the court below did not have the authority to prepare the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is not necessary to determine the validity of the notarial deed as a title of debt by applying the legal principles of the expression agency under the Civil Act.

(2) Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

Under the premise that the authentication of this case extends to the plaintiffs pursuant to the legal principles as seen above, the court below should have determined the assertion that the debts on the authentication of this case were all extinguished due to the payment in kind by the above non-party 1, and thus, considering the testimony of the witness, the above non-party 1 purchased the above non-party 1 from the non-party 2 and the land and the building on the ground of the above 4,300,000 won, and obtained the above real estate from the non-party 3 to the above non-party 5's transfer of the authentication of the authentication of this case to the non-party 1, the above non-party 1 acquired the above notarial deed from the non-party 4,50,000 won, and the above non-party 1 acquired the above non-party 1's land and the building on the ground of the above non-party 1's declaration of intention to be excluded from the execution of the authentication of this case's real right to the non-party 50,000 won.

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)