1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2017, D (the name before the opening of the name: E, the Plaintiff’s wife) referred to as the Plaintiff’s agent against the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s agent, prepared a notarial deed of debt payment contract (No. 408, 2017, a notary public’s document of general law office, No. 308, 2017, the “notarial deed of this case”) with the following content as the Defendant’s agent.

D shall approve on May 31, 2017 that the Defendant bears the following obligations, and the Defendant has subscribed to repay them under this contract provisions, and the Defendant has consented to the loan: KRW 270,000,000 - Interest: 25% per annum (payment on August 30, 201): 19% per annum (payment on August 30, 201) - The Plaintiff shall guarantee the obligations under this contract, and shall agree to jointly and severally with D to jointly perform the obligations: the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation: KRW 300,00,000 - the guarantee obligation period: May 30, 2027; and if the Plaintiff and D fail to perform the monetary obligations under this contract, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if they are immediately subject to compulsory execution from the Defendant.

B. On February 2, 2018, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) against the Plaintiff and the Daegu Dong-gu G Apartment H (hereinafter “instant apartment”) under the instant notarial deed as F with the Daegu District Court F, Daegu District Court on February 2, 2018, and the said court rendered a compulsory decision to commence compulsory auction on February 5, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The compulsory execution based on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant notarial deed should be denied for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff did not confer a power of representation on D with respect to the commission of preparation of the instant notarial deed. Therefore, the part against the Plaintiff among the instant notarial deed is null and void as it is by the commission of an unauthorized representative’s preparation. 2) Even if the instant notarial deed is valid, the Defendant on August 14, 2018.