1. A notary public against the Plaintiff of the Defendants against the Plaintiff, No. 2034, June 7, 2006, No. 2006, No. 2034.

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 4-1, 2, and 3.

On June 7, 2006, the Defendants entrusted the preparation of an executory notarial deed (Defendant C, as the Plaintiff’s agent, as Defendant C), entrusted a notary public with the notarial deed on the debt repayment contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) as set forth below to the Dhap Law Office (hereinafter “Dhap Office”). Accordingly, the instant notarial office, Attorney E, as of 2034 on the same day, drafted the said notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

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 January 20, 2006, the obligor approved that the obligee bears the obligation of KRW 40 million against the obligee on January 20, 2006, and made an offer to repay the obligation in accordance with the following provisions, and the obligee accepted it.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Payment) 40 million won shall be paid on June 20, 2006.

Article 5 (Compensation for Delay) If the obligor delays the repayment of the principal or interest, the obligee shall be paid damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum on the delayed principal or interest.

Article 9 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When an obligor and a joint guarantor fail to perform a pecuniary obligation under this contract, they recognized and recognized that there is no objection even if they are immediately subject to compulsory execution.

The Plaintiff of the Defendants indicated by the relevant parties

B. Based on the instant notarial deed, Defendant C received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim under the Daegu District Court’s Ansan-dong Branch 2016TT10276.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The part of the relevant legal doctrine is either a blank document or an incomplete part.