1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff has the executive force of No. 82 of February 5, 2014, drafted on February 5, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff established D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with C and Dong business, taken office as an internal director. On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director.

B. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff, a joint and several surety, as the Plaintiff’s agent, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff, a creditor on February 5, 2014, have written a notarial deed for a monetary loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stated in Paragraph (1) stating that “C shall borrow interest of KRW 40 million from the Defendant on February 5, 2014 at interest rate of KRW 30% per annum, maturity of payment on February 5, 2015. The Plaintiff shall set the maximum amount of KRW 48 million, guarantee period of KRW 10 million, and joint and several guarantee period of KRW 10,00,000.”

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of parties' assertion on the issues of the instant case

A. Whether the key issue of the instant case delegated C the authority to prepare the instant Notarial Deed with the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety

B. The gist of the party’s assertion 1) Plaintiff A is as follows: (a) Defendant A is the proxy in the name of the Plaintiff attached with the Plaintiff’s certificate of the personal seal impression; (b) Defendant A was authorized by a notary public to exercise the authority to prepare the instant notarial deed; and (c) the Plaintiff asserted that “C, on December 16, 2013, issued a seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal impression with respect to the establishment of D and the appointment of officers, etc., and C prepared the instant notarial deed using it.”

As above, the Plaintiff’s failure to leave the seal imprint and the seal imprint, etc. to C for a long time shall be deemed to have granted the Plaintiff the comprehensive right to use the seal imprint, etc. according to the business trust relationship with C (title trust). Since there was no limitation on the use of the seal imprint, the Plaintiff shall be held liable for the act done by C using the above seal imprint, etc.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff’s instant case around February 11, 2014.