1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Upon receiving a claim added at the trial court, the Defendant’s KRW 99,505,394 and the Plaintiff.
The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "The defendant asserts that the plaintiff ratified the preparation of a notarial deed of this case" following the fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. The declaration of intent of recognition of execution on a notarial deed is an act of litigation by a document prepared in accordance with the form of text and law as an obligor's sole declaration of intent against a notary public. Thus, the declaration of intent of ratification on the recognition of execution among defective notarial deeds should be made in the notarial deed, and the declaration of intention of ratification on the execution should be made in the notarial deed as an authentication method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da20473, Apr. 26, 1991). Since there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff declared the intention of ratification on the recognition of execution in the notarial deed, the defendant's argument is without merit. Further, except for the judgment added by the plaintiff to the claim for return of unjust enrichment added in the notarial deed, it is justified as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment as to Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 8, the defendant collected 31,684,706 won from the non-CC Card Co., Ltd., 22,87,163 won from the KB Card Co., Ltd., and 27,710,640 won from the new card Co., Ltd., Samsung Card Co., Ltd., 9,289,872 won from Samsung Card Co., Ltd., and 7,943,013 won from Samsung Card Co., Ltd., 7,99,505,394 (hereinafter "the collection amount of this case") from the third debtor of the plaintiff.
As seen earlier, a claim based on the instant authentic deed is null and void, as seen earlier.