1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the testimony of the witness C at the trial. A.

On June 23, 2013, upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression from C, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression from the delegating person, etc., with the Plaintiff’s seal impression affixed on a letter of delegation (hereinafter “instant letter of delegation”). The said letter of delegation stated that “any delegation to which the mandatory is the agent of the delegating person and commission the preparation of a notarial deed from the same law firm in the same manner is written in annexed characters.”

B. Around that time, the Defendant stated “A (Plaintiff),” “B (Defendant),” “B in the obligee column,” “In the obligor column,” “A0 million won on the date of loan,” “30% on the date of loan,” “30% on the date of repayment,” and “30% on the date of maturity,” respectively in the column for payment.

C. On July 21, 2011, the Defendant, upon submitting the instant proxy certificate and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, entrusted the creditor himself/herself and the obligor to prepare a notarial deed as his/her agent. Accordingly, on June 23, 2011, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed stating that “The Defendant, on June 23, 2011, lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on June 23, 201, at the rate of delay damages, 30% per annum and the due date until June 30, 2011, and the Plaintiff is aware of compulsory execution” (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed of this case was made by the defendant's commission that does not have a legitimate authority to act for the plaintiff, and thus, it is invalid for the plaintiff. 2) The defendant, on June 23, 201, lent KRW 10,000 to the plaintiff on June 23, 2011, in the name of the plaintiff or C with the plaintiff's consent.