1. Certificates drawn up on July 11, 2014, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff of Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, which belongs to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office.

1. Basic facts

A. A certified judicial scrivener who prepared an executory notarial deed shall, on July 11, 2014, commission C’s office affiliated with the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “instant notary public”) to conduct a notarized act on debt repayment (quasi-loan for Consumption) agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) as follows. The instant notary public prepared the said notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) at No. 4480 on the same day on the same day.

On the other hand, the notarial deed of this case states that "the power of representation on commission is recognized by the power of attorney attached to the certificate of personal seal impression of the principal."

On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) recognized that the obligation owed to the Defendant is KRW 150,000,000 as of July 11, 2014; (b) offered an offer to repay the obligation in accordance with the following provisions; and (c) accepted the claim by the obligee.

Article 2: On June 30, 2014, when an obligor (Plaintiff) fails to perform his/her monetary obligation under this Agreement, on June 30, 2014, he/she recognized that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted immediately.

B. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed with executory power, received a seizure and collection order of the Plaintiff’s deposit, etc. ( Daejeon District Court 2017TTT 4823), and collected KRW 14,904,079 from among the Plaintiff’s bank deposit around May 10, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion did not delegate his authority to commission a certified judicial scrivener to prepare the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is prepared by the commission of a non-authorized representative and has no effect as an executive title.

Therefore, the compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed is denied, and the money collected by the Defendant based on the instant notarial deed is unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.