1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement with the executory power of No. 205 of the C Deed No. 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) operated the meat retail store “D” (hereinafter “instant refined meat store”); (b) registered the instant refined meat store as a joint business proprietor.

B. The Plaintiff and E, from March 2016, decided to additionally engage in wholesale business at the instant refined landing point, and were supplied by the Defendant.

C. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff and E, as the agent of the Plaintiff and E, the Defendant and the notary public drafted a notarial deed with the content that the Defendant and the notary public would accept compulsory execution as the debtor, the Defendant, the obligee, the Defendant on April 21, 2016, the loan of KRW 200 million, the due date of payment of KRW 250 million, and the due date of payment of KRW 15% on June 25, 2016, and the delayed interest rate of KRW 15%.

(hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). D.

As of October 23, 2016, the Plaintiff withdrawn from joint business operators of the instant landing point, and began to operate a mixed meat wholesale retail business with the trade name “G” on October 24, 2016.

E. Around March 2017, E fully repaid the Defendant’s obligation to the instant land store, and operated livestock products wholesale and retail business by establishing H on March 21, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The primary assertion asserts that the authentication of this case, which was made on the commission of an unauthorized representative, was null and void, since the Plaintiff did not grant F the right to represent the preparation of the authentication of this case to F.

The burden of proof as to the existence of the right of representation is borne by the person who asserts the existence of the right of representation. According to the Supreme Court Decision 2008Da42195 Decided September 25, 2008, the part of the evidence Nos. 9 and 11, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff and E deliver a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to I who are the defendant's employees as a security of the outstanding amount as the security of the outstanding amount. The facts that F, the defendant's employees, prepared the notarial deed as the plaintiff and E's representative, and the notary public, after preparing the notarial deed