1. On the notarial deed No. 3108 of the defendant's office of notary public C belonging to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff of the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The contents of the notarial deed written in the text (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) are as follows.

On March 31, 2010, the creditor of Article 1 (money lending) lent KRW 25,000,000 to the debtor, and the debtor borrowed this regularly.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) The last day of June 2010 was determined.

Article 3 (Interest) Interest rate was set at 30% per annum and paid at the end of each month.

Article 5 (Compensation for Delay) If the obligor fails to pay the principal or interest, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum on the principal or interest shall be paid to the obligee.

Creditor A joint and several sureties D

B. A notary public stated at the end of the above notarial deed that “the notary public recognized that the notary public is not the identity of the said person based on his resident registration certificate ( driver’s license) presented by the said creditor, debtor, and joint and several sureties.”

C. The defendant, the debtor, and the joint guarantor stated in the above notarial deed, and the plaintiff and D affix their signatures and seals on each corresponding part of the above notarial deed.

D, which is written as a joint guarantor in the above notarial deed, is the plaintiff's mother.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 25,00,000 from the Defendant in the notarial deed of this case, the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff made the said notarial deed with the Defendant as the obligee, and there was no fact between the above notarial office and the above notarial office.

B. The above notarial deed appears to have been prepared by D, the Plaintiff’s mother, on behalf of the Plaintiff, but there is no fact that the Plaintiff has delegated D the power of representation.

C. Therefore, since the above notarial deed is null and void, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed must be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff did not affix his seal on the notarial deed of this case.

Although it is alleged that there is no delegation of power of representation to either party or D, the above facts and Section A 2 to Section A.