1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a law firm D, No. 1469, Sept. 30, 2011, No. 2011.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Promissory notes issued on September 22, 201, KRW 100,000,000, and the due date on March 30, 2012, the issuer, the issuer, and the payee, and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) were issued.

B. On September 30, 2011, a notarial deed as indicated in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) was prepared upon F’s commission with respect to the Promissory Notes in this case. The said notarial deed is written by F as the agent of both the Plaintiff, E, and Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff asserts that the promissory note of this case is prepared by E without permission, and since the notarial deed of this case is all invalid by commission of F, an unauthorized agent, the compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall not be permitted.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Promissory Notes and the Notarial Deed of this case were prepared to guarantee the payment of any balance in the course of purchasing the land owned by the Defendant, and that it was made under the Plaintiff’s permission and involvement.

3. Determination

A. Since the indication of recognition and recognition of execution that a notarial deed allows a notary public to have executory power as a title of debt is an act of litigation against a notary public, in case where a notarial deed is prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as a title of debt, and the burden of proof as to the existence of power to prepare such notarial deed has the effect on

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da45303, 45310, Feb. 23, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114, Jun. 28, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114, Jun. 28, 2002). In addition, the authenticity of the portion drawn up by a notary public of a notarial deed is presumed, but the facts which can be recognized by it are presumed to be the authenticity of the portion drawn up by a notary public, and it is not naturally recognized that

Supreme Court Decision 200Do448 delivered on February 22, 1994