1. The defendant's office of the notary public against the plaintiff, the office of the notary public, May 15, 2012, and the monetary loan contract No. 470 of 2012.

Facts of recognition

On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant D and one parcel and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 425,00,000 in the purchase price.

On March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said real estate without paying part of the purchase price.

On May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and provided a certificate of borrowed money of KRW 120,000,000 for the Defendant’s balance of purchase and sale. The content of the certificate was that the said balance should be paid until May 21, 2013, and the interest shall be paid at a rate of 10% per annum on a 21st day per month.

On the other hand, as of May 15, 2012, the Notarial Deed listed in Paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “Notarial Deed”) was prepared, and its content is determined by interest rate of 30% per annum.

The same shall apply to a certificate of borrowing stated in the subsection.

As of May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a certificate of borrowing KRW 52,00,000 to the Defendant. However, the content was that KRW 52,00,000,000, which is the remainder of the sale and purchase of the instant real estate, should be repaid until May 21, 2014, and the interest calculated at the rate of 3% per month for the remainder should be paid on the 21st day of each month.

From April 17, 2014 to June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 137,300,000 to the Defendant.

On February 1, 2016, the Defendant drafted a letter of performance that the Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 110,000,000 to the Plaintiff by April 25, 2016.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

The plaintiff alleged by the plaintiff does not confer the power of attorney on the preparation of the notarial deed of this case to the defendant. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is invalid.

Even if not, the Plaintiff fully repaid the Defendant’s obligations based on the above notarial deed.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should not be permitted.

The Plaintiff is the Defendant’s authentic deed of this case.