1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm in the new century No. 276, Apr. 21, 2011.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2010, C, the Plaintiff’s mother, entered the number fraternity (50 million won: KRW 2.5 million prior to the receipt of the fraternity and KRW 3.1 million after the receipt of the fraternity; KRW 2.5 million; KRW 21 million after the receipt of the fraternity; hereinafter “instant fraternity”) and received KRW 55.4 million from Defendant on February 11, 201.

B. In order to guarantee C’s obligation to pay back money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff made a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption with the obligor and the Defendant as the obligee.

On February 11, 2011, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter of delegation to prepare a notarial deed signed and sealed on the certificate of personal seal impression issued by the Plaintiff and “a delegating person” column (hereinafter “instant letter of delegation”).

The Defendant written in the letter of delegation of this case’s “debt amount of KRW 70 million” and “loan Date” as “ February 11, 201” and “Repayment Date” respectively with “30% per annum” and “interest on June 30, 201” respectively.

C. On April 21, 2011, the Defendant, based on the instant power of attorney, as the obligee and the obligor’s agent, lent the amount of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff on February 11, 201, at interest rate of KRW 30% per annum and due date of payment on June 30, 201, and the Plaintiff borrowed it.

"" entrusted the preparation of the Notarial Deed of this case.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the issues of the instant case

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the scope of C’s obligation to guarantee the Plaintiff’s claim is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff offered the instant power of attorney to guarantee only the remaining obligation of KRW 27.9 million (3.1 million x 9 times) after the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant limit of attorney; and (b) the Plaintiff did not guarantee the obligation for the payment of other accounts that occurred or may arise in the future.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have the authority to set the principal amount of the notarial deed of this case to the Defendant as KRW 70 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 30% per annum, and due date on June 30, 2011.

B. Defendant C.