1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on January 19, 2016 (No. 33, 2016) an associate law office with respect to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

In accordance with the commission of B and Defendant’s agent C, a notary public prepared a notarial deed on January 19, 2016 on a money loan contract for transfer security (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). The instant notarial deed does not contain any part directly stated by the Plaintiff, the debtor, and there is no name or seal of the Plaintiff in the party column. However, the name and seal of B is affixed as the Plaintiff’s agent.

The Notarial Deed of this case is accompanied by a list of movables written by the Plaintiff.

On February 25, 2016, the Defendant seized corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff as the title of execution under this Court No. 2016No. 548 with the title of execution.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 2호증, 변론 전체의 취지 원고의 주장 피고의 원고에 대한 대출은 불법적 대출 수수료와 꺽기식 재대출로 이자의 감면이 전혀 없은 불법적 대출이었다.

In addition, the plaintiff is at all who is named B as the plaintiff's agent in the notarial deed of this case.

Judgment

Since the indication of the recognition of execution recognition that a notarial deed of relevant legal principles has an executory power as an executory power is an action against a notary public, it is not effective as an executory power in a case where a notarial deed is prepared by a commission from an executory agent (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803, Mar. 24, 2006). The burden of proving that an executory power exists is an executory power.

(See Supreme Court Decision 208Da42195 Decided September 25, 2008). In light of the following, the Plaintiff’s name and seal did not appear on the instant notarial deed, and the Plaintiff did not have any content written in writing, the mere fact that the said notarial deed is accompanied by a movable list written by the Plaintiff’s writing is legitimate to commission B to prepare the instant notarial deed on behalf of the Plaintiff.