1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on March 16, 2012, No. 578 of the document drawn up by March 16, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. C, while serving as the representative director of the Plaintiff, was suffering from brain damage at issue on July 13, 2010, and D, its wife, became the representative director of the Plaintiff on October 27, 2010.

B. On March 16, 2012, between the Plaintiff’s auditor and the former E and the Defendant and the Plaintiff, whose wife is the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall be paid KRW 264 million of living expenses to the Defendant, and the Defendant shall be paid KRW 200 million of living expenses in installments from April 20, 2012 to KRW 220 million each month, and the Plaintiff shall be jointly and severally guaranteed, and the Plaintiff shall be jointly and severally guaranteed, and if E and the Plaintiff fail to perform their obligations, a notary public shall have no objection to the compulsory execution of their duties (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

In relation to the commission of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, E and the defendant directly attended the above notarial office, and E were represented by submitting a power of attorney to commission the preparation of the notarial deed in the name of the plaintiff (hereinafter "the proxy of this case") attached with the Plaintiff's corporate seal impression and the certificate of corporate seal impression affixed.

C. On May 22, 2014, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff to F of this court on the instant notarial deed, and rendered a decision to commence the auction on May 24, 2014.

[Judgment of the court below] The facts that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that E has forged the power of attorney of this case and entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed on behalf of the plaintiff without authority, so compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

In full view of the above evidence and the purport of Gap evidence No. 8, E, who had been employed for about 22 years with and without the plaintiff's audit and transfer, agreed to pay the living expenses to the defendant at the time of divorce between the defendant and the defendant.