1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is one of the law firms, No. 10547, Dec. 27, 2012.

Plaintiff

On December 27, 2012, C, which was a lessee of an apartment house, prepared a notarial deed of this case with interest rate of KRW 80 million to the Defendant, 2.5% on June 26, 2013, 2013, and where a notary public who borrowed money and did not pay the above money, he/she would accept an immediate compulsory execution as a law firm as a notarial deed of this case, No. 10547 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”). The above C, when preparing the notarial deed of this case, made the notarial deed of this case to present the notarial deed of this case to the law firm as the Plaintiff, on the ground that the notarial deed of this case was prepared and presented the notarial deed of this case, on the ground that the above notarial deed of this case was the Plaintiff, on the ground that the above notarial deed of this case was the joint and several notarial deed of this case, the fact that the Plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case with the above notarial deed of this case to the Defendant as a joint surety.

According to the above facts, since the notarial deed of this case was prepared without the plaintiff's consent by the non-person who made the plaintiff's notarial deed without the plaintiff's consent, the notarial deed of this case under the premise that the plaintiff is a joint and several surety has no effect, and therefore compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.