1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2010, the Defendant, with respect to a loan claim of KRW 30,000,000 against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2006, made a notarial deed of this case with the following contents entrusted to us by a notary public:

Article 1 (Purpose) : On March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 30,000,000 in accordance with the monetary loan agreement as of December 9, 2006, and offered to pay it in accordance with the following provisions, and the Defendant accepted it:

Article 2 (Period and Method of Payment): Article 7 (Loss of Benefit of Time): The plaintiff shall lose the benefit of time when he has received compulsory execution, provisional seizure, etc. from a third party and shall immediately repay all the remainder of his obligations.

Article 9 (Recognition of Compulsory Execution): In the event that the plaintiff fails to discharge his monetary obligation under this contract, the plaintiff acknowledged the absence of objection immediately after compulsory execution.

B. The Defendant submitted the Plaintiff’s proxy and certificate of personal seal to the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication, and the attorney-at-law in charge of authentication prepared the instant notarial deed based on

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that he did not grant the right of representation to the defendant to commission the preparation of the notarial deed of this case. Thus, among the power of attorney (Evidence A2) to delegate all the authority to commission the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, there is no dispute that the following stamp image of the plaintiff's name is based on the certificate of personal seal (Evidence A No. 3) issued by the plaintiff himself on March 22, 2010, and the plaintiff granted the right of representation to the defendant to prepare the notarial deed of this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff next, the notarial deed of this case is written as of December 31, 2020, where the date of repayment does not coincide with the common sense.