1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff shall execute the deed No. 13 of January 2, 2013 prepared by us.

1. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff’s mother C, as an obligor and the legal representative of the Plaintiff, entrusted us with the preparation of a notarial deed stating that “the Plaintiff’s debt 22,200,000 won for the Defendant’s loan to the Defendant” shall be jointly and severally guaranteed by us, and the Plaintiff’s legal representative affixed his seal as the Plaintiff’s legal representative on the same day, a notary public drafted the said notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with 13th of 2013 by us.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff not only did not delegate C with regard to the preparation of the notarial deed of this case, but also asserted that the preparation of the notarial deed of this case does not conflict with C and the plaintiff's interest, and that the notarial deed of this case was not appointed by the special representative.

B. The plaintiff's legal representative under Article 920 of the Civil Code prepared the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's consent or consent is not necessary.

However, the plaintiff's joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties's debt, which is the debtor on the notarial deed of this case, is null and void if the interests between the plaintiff and C conflict with each other and it takes place without a special representative (Supreme Court Decision 63Da547 delivered on August 31, 1964), and the plaintiff's above assertion is reasonable.

C. If so, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff shall not be permitted.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.