1. A notary public of August 21, 2012 against the defendant's plaintiff on August 21, 2012, the 2012 deed No. 671.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a son of B, and the defendant is a company with a claim for the price of goods against C operated by B.

B. On August 21, 2012 between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and B, a notary public: (a) drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, on August 21, 2012, stating that “The debtor B, on August 21, 2012, determined the due date from the Defendant on November 30, 2012, borrowed KRW 443,871,640, and the Plaintiff, a joint and several surety, is jointly and severally guaranteed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”); and (b) at the time, the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, represented the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 14 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff did not delegate his authority to entrust the Plaintiff with the preparation of the Notarial Deed, B entrusted the preparation of the Notarial Deed using the Plaintiff’s seal impression and the Plaintiff’s seal impression, the said Notarial Deed is null and void as it is by the commission of preparation by an unauthorized Representative. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed should be denied.

In addition, since the Defendant entered into a loan for consumption on the Notarial Deed using the poor condition in B in the process of corporate rehabilitation of C Co., Ltd. operated by B, it constitutes an unfair juristic act and thus becomes null and void, or the above loan for consumption was entered into as a condition to suspend selling the above condition to D and three parcels owned by C as well as the Plaintiff, but the above condition was not fulfilled, so compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed should be denied.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff delegated the authority to commission the preparation of the instant authentic deed to B, his father, and even if B entrusted the preparation of the instant authentic deed without any authority, the Plaintiff was notified of the preparation of the instant authentic deed and did not raise any objection until the instant lawsuit is filed.