beta
Text
1. A deed of 2012 drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on July 3, 2012.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 26, 2012, Nonparty B prepared a letter of delegation with the Plaintiff as a delegating (hereinafter “the instant letter of delegation”) and issued a promissory note with the Plaintiff’s name as of June 26, 2012 and delivered it to the Defendant on August 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).
B. On July 3, 2012, B: (a) the instant letter of delegation accompanied by the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression in the Gangnam-dong Law Office; and (b) the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression as the agent of the issuer and addressee of the Promissory Notes; and (c) when delay in the payment of the said amount with respect to the Promissory Notes, B entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed stating a declaration of intent to recognize and recognize that no objection is raised even if compulsory execution was conducted immediately; and (d) on the same day, the said notary public drafted a notarial deed of the contents of the Promissory Notes-dong Law Office 2012 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 17, Eul's testimony, Eul's testimony, fact-finding of law firm transmission by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to this case’s letter of delegation is written with the Plaintiff’s corporate seal affixed to B without permission, and the Plaintiff did not confer the Plaintiff’s power of representation on the issuance of the Promissory Notes and the commission of the Notarial Deed. Thus, the Notarial Deed in this case’s letter of delegation is not effective by the commission of an unauthorized Representative, and compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed is not permissible.
B. Defendant’s assertion ① This case’s notarial deed is valid as it was lawfully prepared by the Plaintiff with the power of representation granted from the Plaintiff, and ② is not so.
Even if the plaintiff is a notary public of this case from the Gangnam-do Joint Law Office.