1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff No. 42 of the year 2017, 2017, drawn up on January 26, 2017.

Basic Facts

On January 26, 2017, to B, a notary public shall set forth the following to the law firm manager:

The power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff was prepared to delegate all powers to commission the preparation of a notarial deed as to a promissory note stated in the subsection.

(2) On the same day, a notary public, as an agent of the Plaintiff, entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed to a law firm representative on the same day, issued promissory notes causing KRW 250,000,000 for the issuer, C ( husband of the Plaintiff), D, D, E (D) and par value 250,000, and signed and sealed each of them. A notary public, which included the contents of recognition of compulsory execution in the event of non-performance, prepared a notarial deed No. 42, 2017, No. 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”). [Reasons for Recognition] did not dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the judgment as to the respective entries in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 and the grounds for the overall purport of the argument, is based on the Plaintiff’s seal. However, the Plaintiff’s seal stamped on the power of attorney in this case is consistent with the Plaintiff’s seal. However, there is no seal affixed by the Plaintiff, and the mandatary, the mandatary, was entirely unaware, and the Plaintiff did not confer the Plaintiff’s power

The defendant asserts that although the defendant's employee B did not have the right of representation granted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff granted his husband C the right of representation on the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, and C granted the right of representation to the plaintiff, thereby making the notarial deed of this case.

Judgment

In full view of the above evidence, as a whole, evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as witness C’s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, F, an employee of the defendant, affixed seals of the plaintiff, who was obtained from C, on the issuer’s name of the promissory note in this case and on the delegating column of the power of attorney in this case. In such a case, the authenticity is established.