1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is an executory deed No. 1378 of the 2008 Certificate C prepared by C.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff joint and several sureties: D representative E and debtor, joint and several sureties: defendant 1 (Purpose) shall lend 202,680,000 won to the debtor on April 20, 2008, and the debtor shall borrow this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Payment) The full repayment was made on September 10, 2008.

Article 3 (Interest) The interest rate shall be paid at the rate of 14% per annum along with the principal of the debt.

When the obligor delays the repayment of principal or interest, the obligor shall pay the obligee damages for delay at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed principal or interest.

On August 28, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public signed a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the following content as the document No. 1378, 2008, No. C, 2008.

At the time of the preparation of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant presented the power of attorney-at-law in charge of authentication, the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression issued by the Plaintiff himself to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression issued by D, as well as the fact that “the Plaintiff and D delegate the authority to commission the Defendant to prepare the notarial deed” was a letter of delegation signed and sealed by the Plaintiff and D’s certificate of personal seal impression respectively

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should not be allowed, since the notarial deed of this case is invalid since the notarial deed of this case was forged by the defendant, the notarial deed of this case is invalid.

However, as seen earlier, insofar as the stamp image of the Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd. in the column of delegation of the power of this case was displayed respectively by the seals of Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd., the authenticity of such stamp image portion is presumed to have been established, and accordingly, this case.