1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 2633, 2008, drafted on October 10, 2008 by EelbS Law Firm EelbS. against the Plaintiff.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant commissioned the creditor (the defendant) and the joint guarantor (the plaintiff) to prepare a notarial deed of money loan contract (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of this case") as the representative of the creditor and the joint guarantor (the plaintiff), and the notarial deed of this case is prepared.

The plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed of this case is invalid because it was prepared by the commission of the defendant who is not authorized to act on behalf of the plaintiff. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence of the power of representation is the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da42047 delivered on February 22, 1994, etc.). However, since the defendant does not prove this, it is reasonable to deem that the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the commission of the non-authorized person, and it has no effect on the plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the execution of the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff by the defendant should not be permitted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.