beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 633, July 8, 2016, prepared by C in July 8, 2016 by C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 8, 2016, “D borrowed KRW 29 million from the Defendant and repaid in installments until October 25, 2017, but the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for the said borrowed debt, and if the debtor and the joint guarantor fail to perform the said debt, a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was drafted on July 8, 2016, stating that “The said debt shall be jointly and severally guaranteed, and if the debtor and the joint guarantor fail to perform the said debt, they shall have no objection even if they are immediately subject to compulsory execution.”
B. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff delegated the authority to entrust E with the preparation of the instant authentic deed.
“There is no sign or seal on the power of attorney to the effect that it is signed or sealed by it.
Nevertheless, on July 8, 2016, E entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff’s agent is qualified, and the said notarial deed was prepared.
【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The indication of recognition and recognition of execution that a notarial deed allows a notary public to have an executory power as an executory power is an act of litigation against a notary public, so in case where a notarial deed is prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative, it has no effect as an executory power, and the burden of proof as to the existence of power to prepare such notarial deed
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114, Jun. 28, 2002).
Accordingly, in this case, the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the entrustment of E, the defendant must prove that E has obtained the power of representation in the preparation of the notarial deed of this case from the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
C. Therefore, this case’s notarial deed is null and void as it is based on the commission of an unqualified person. Therefore, compulsory execution based thereon is not permissible.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.