1. Certificate No. 50, 2014, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on February 5, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. C is dismissed from the office of the representative director of the Plaintiff on January 29, 2014, and is under the same year.

2.3. The registration of dismissal has been made.

B. On February 5, 2014, the aforementioned C and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed stating that a notary public borrowed KRW 260 million from the Defendant at an annual interest rate of KRW 18,000 from the Defendant on March 21, 2012, and on February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant on March 21, 2012, with the maturity of KRW 18,000,000,000 as the maturity of payment, and, in the event of nonperformance of this, there is no objection even if compulsory execution was conducted (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The indication of an execution recognition and recognition which a notarial deed is to have executory power as a title of debt is the procedural acts against a notary public, and thus, when a notarial deed has been prepared by the commission of an unauthorized representative, it shall not be effective as a title of debt; and

According to the facts acknowledged above, the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the commission of C, which had already been dismissed by the representative director of the plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of the notarial deed of this case, and its validity is no longer effective. Thus, it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution of this case with the title of execution.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the notarial deed of this case is still valid since the defendant did not know that the notarial deed of this case had expired at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed of this case.

However, the indication of recognition of execution, which allows a notarial deed to have executory power as a title of debt, is an act of litigation against a notary public, and such act of litigation cannot be applied or applied mutatis mutandis (Supreme Court Decision 93Da42047 delivered on February 22, 1994). Thus, the defendant's above assertion, which is premised on the application of the expression representation, is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.