beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs is on the notarial deed of Promissory Notes No. 89, 201, No. 2011.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiffs, as married couple, jointly issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the Defendant’s face value of KRW 10 million.
B. On March 24, 2011, the Defendant: (a) as to the Promissory Notes in the capacity of the principal and the representative of the Plaintiffs, “the purport of recognizing that there is no objection even if the Plaintiff delays the payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes to the holders of the Promissory Notes” was written by a notary public as the No. 89 of the D Deed No. 2011, 201.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 2 and 4
2. Determination:
A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was to issue this case’s promissory note to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request on the pretext of contingent fees for the cases delegated to the Defendant.
However, the defendant was issued the Promissory Notes from the plaintiffs in return for handling legal affairs even though it is not an attorney-at-law, so the plaintiffs' act of issuing the Promissory Notes in this case is null and void.
Therefore, the notarial deed of this case is invalid as an executive title, and there is no validity, so compulsory execution based thereon should be rejected.
B. Article 74(1) of the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act provides that “A person, other than a certified judicial scrivener, engages in the business of preparing documents, etc. submitted to a court or prosecutor’s office delegated by another person.” In addition, Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that “A person, other than a certified judicial scrivener, shall receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits, shall be punished.”
However, Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is a mandatory law that prohibits a person who is not an attorney-at-law from dealing with legal affairs to maintain the lawyer system, and the legal act aimed at acquiring profits defined in Article 109 of the same Act itself has the anti-social character.