1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 22, 2015, the Defendant’s limited partner C submitted a letter of delegation to the Plaintiff and the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and made the instant notarial deed containing the following:

Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 22, 2015, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) The repayment deadline shall be November 2, 2015.

Article 5 (Amount of Delay Damages) If the Plaintiff delays the repayment of the principal, the late payment damages shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum for the delayed principal.

Article 9 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When the plaintiff has failed to discharge his pecuniary obligation under this contract, the plaintiff recognized the absence of objection immediately after compulsory execution.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 4, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the portion that was the remainder and the date in the separate letter of delegation stated “Yeocheon,00,000”, “A, and Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City D 101 Dong 1801, Dong-dong 1801,” and the separate letter of delegation only granted the Defendant’s actual private owner E with the authority to request the preparation of a notarial deed, and that the notarial deed in this case is null and void because it did not confer it to C.

However, the letter of delegation was printed as "the debtor agrees to appoint a person appointed by the creditor as his agent," and when considering the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 3-1, it is recognized that the defendant, the creditor, appointed C as the plaintiff's agent, and therefore C has the authority to commission the preparation of the notarial deed on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the execution of the notarial deed of this case, and the Defendant and E, the actual owner of the notarial deed, deceiving the Plaintiff to not exercise their rights based on the notarial deed of this case.