1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff’s mother borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant, and on April 5, 2010, a notary public entrusted to the Chuncheon Joint Law Office, and signed a notarial deed under the Monetary Loan Agreement (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with No. 589 on April 5, 2010.

B. The notarial deed of this case contains the content that the plaintiff is jointly and severally guaranteed by C, and the indication of recognition and recognition that there is no objection even if compulsory execution was conducted immediately when C and the plaintiff fail to perform the above obligation.

C. At the time of commissioning the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, C submitted to the said attorney-at-law a letter of delegation (No. 3-1, hereinafter referred to as “the letter of delegation of this case”) stamped the Plaintiff’s seal and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression (No. 1) issued by the Plaintiff himself, on the ground that C received the Plaintiff’s power of representation as the Plaintiff’s agent

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that C borrowed money from the defendant and concealed the facts of the joint and several guarantee and the preparation of the notarial deed in this case, and received it from the plaintiff and completed the notarial deed in this case, since it is necessary for the plaintiff's power and certificate of personal seal impression, the notarial deed in this case is invalid as it is based on the commission of the unauthorized Agent. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant is nonexistent.

B. On April 2, 2010, the fact that the letter of delegation of this case affixed the Defendant’s seal imprint and the Plaintiff himself issued a certificate of personal seal impression on April 2, 2010 immediately before being entrusted with the preparation of the notarial deed of this case does not conflict between the parties. The following circumstances are the following circumstances, which can be seen by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4, and Eul evidence 4-1 through Eul evidence 6.