A notary public against the plaintiff of the defendant is based on No. 179 of 2019, No. 179 of a deed drawn up by C on May 2, 2019.

The part concerning the plaintiff who is a joint and several surety in the notarial deed mentioned in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of this case") is prepared by commissioning D employee of the defendant as the plaintiff's representative.

(A) However, it is a matter of whether the Plaintiff granted the power of representation to D with respect to the commission of the preparation of the No. 1 notarial deed of this case.

In this regard, the stamp image of the Plaintiff’s name affixed on the power of attorney (Evidence A7) is not the Plaintiff’s seal impression (Evidence A7) but there is no other evidence to prove the fact that the said power of attorney was drawn up by the Plaintiff’s intent. Thus, this cannot be a evidence to prove the fact of granting the power of attorney, and there is no other evidence to prove the fact that the Plaintiff conferred the power of attorney to D

Therefore, since the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the commission of an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as an executive title.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's assertion that the representative of the plaintiff is constituted under Article 126 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45303, 45310, Feb. 23, 2001). The defendant asserts that the representative of the plaintiff is constituted under Article 126 of the Civil Act. However, since there is no evidence to prove that D had the basic power to represent the plaintiff, the above representative of the plaintiff cannot be established, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff had implicitly ratified

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot cancel the certificate of this case because the defendant is a bona fide third person with respect to the declaration of intention by fraud. However, the non-legal effect of the certificate of this case is based on the commission of an unauthorized representative, and it is not because the certificate of this case was cancelled as a declaration of intent by fraud. Thus, whether the defendant acted in good faith or not does not affect the rejection of the validity of the certificate of this case.