All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the Defendants are dismissed.

This Court 2020 Canada 5077.

1. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants: (a) a notary public, on December 2, 2012, 200, set the payment period of KRW 28,000,000 as KRW 25% per annum on the part of the designated parties F and the network H on behalf of the said F, was drafted a fair deed of monetary consumption lending and lending contract (hereinafter “Fair Deed”) signed by the G Law Firm 108, 2012, with the content that the Defendants were to lend KRW 28,00,000 per annum on the part of the said F.

However, the network H did not grant the representative authority on the lending of the instant fair deed to the Selection F, and the above F is a de facto representative of the network H. In the event that the process deed was prepared upon the commission of a non-authorized representative, the process deed has no effect as an execution title.

In addition, at the time of the preparation of the instant work deed, the deceased H was 78 years old at the time of the completion of the instant work deed, and the academic background was entirely the entire elementary school of Jeollabuk-do, and the Selection F was also economically difficult circumstances due to the age of 70 years. As such, the aforementioned F’s economic situation and rash were used to pay KRW 28,00,000 to one month, and the delayed damages were also set at a high rate of 25% per annum, and thus, the instant work deed is null and void as an unfair juristic act.

Therefore, the compulsory execution against the plaintiff, the appointed party D, and E, who is the heir of the F and the network H based on the instant work deed, should not be allowed.

2. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the process certificate of this case was due to the designated party F’s act of acting as a representative of the designated party F, or that it was made due to an unfair juristic act, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. If so, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.