1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2015 Chicago188, 2015.

1. The fact that the defendant is a creditor of the Notarial Deed stated in the purport of the claim against the plaintiff (hereinafter "Notarial Deed of this case") is no dispute between the parties.

2. On March 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 4 million from the Defendant on or around March 2012; and (b) at the time, the Plaintiff provided a vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff, which he/she was on board C as a security for the foregoing loan obligation; (c) provided a joint and several guarantee for the said obligation; and (d) there was no joint and several guarantee for the instant obligation on the instant notarial deed; (b) the Defendant, even though he/she did not have any authority to prepare the instant notarial deed using the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and power issued by C around March 2012, prepared the instant notarial deed without the Plaintiff’s authority as his/her agent; and (c) accordingly, (d)

Unless there are special circumstances, such as assertion and proof that a notary public has not gone through the procedures prescribed in the Notary Public Act if he/she has authenticated a deed signed by a notary public, the authenticity of the deed signed by a notary public is presumed to have been established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da35816, Jul. 28, 1992). It is insufficient to recognize that only the testimony of the witness C did not go through the procedures prescribed in the Notary Public Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the entries in Eul-1 through 8, fact inquiry into a correct way as a notary public of this court, and the whole purport of oral argument, the certificate of personal seal impression attached to the notarial deed of this case is not attached to the notarial deed of this case, but to deposit money to C by the defendant, and a notary public is issued on April 10, 2012, which was prepared by the notary public of this case, and it cannot be acknowledged that the facts prescribed in the Notary Public Act have been established.

3. Conclusion.