1. Certificates No. 770, 2019, drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff (LLC) on May 17, 2019 by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A notary public of a law firm (LLC) signed on May 17, 2019 a certificate of the process of lending and borrowing of money (hereinafter “the process deed of this case”) No. 770 of 2019 signed by the law firm (hereinafter “the process deed of this case”) was offered to pay the loan immediately in the following cases: “D’s interest rate of KRW 500 million from the Defendant on May 17, 2019 at 24% per annum (payment on May 17, 201), late interest rate of KRW 24% per annum (payment on May 17, 201), late interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, and due date of payment on May 17, 2020; and the Defendant consented to this.

The plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt, and the maximum amount of the debt guarantee shall be the principal, the interest and delayed damages, and the guarantee debt period shall be three years.

D and the Plaintiff were drafted with the content that, if they fail to perform their monetary obligations under this Agreement, they did not object to compulsory execution, even if they were immediately subject to compulsory execution.

B. D entrusted the preparation of the instant fair deed as a representative of the debtor himself/herself and the joint guarantor, and submitted a letter of delegation in the name of the plaintiff attached with the Plaintiff’s seal impression certificate to verify the Plaintiff’s qualification as an agent at the time.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not confer the power of representation on the Plaintiff D with respect to the commission of the preparation of the instant fair deed. As such, the portion of the instant fair deed against the Plaintiff is null and void by the commission of the Plaintiff’s unauthorized representative with respect to the preparation of the instant fair deed.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the fair deed of this case against the plaintiff should be rejected.

B. Defendant D duly entrusted the preparation of the instant fair deed as the Plaintiff’s agent, and thus, the instant fair deed is valid.

3. Determination

(a) The indication of fall, which the relevant legal principles and process certificate allows the executor to have executory power as the executory title, is a procedural act against a notary public, so the executory title is the executory title when a process certificate is prepared at the commission of a non-authorized representative.