1. A notary public belonging to the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff in the same document prepared by the defendant in 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff’s representative C and the Defendant, who is a director, hold 600 shares of the Plaintiff as of June 30, 2016 and 400 shares, respectively.

B. On October 21, 2016, the Defendant’s husband D and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of promissory notes (No. 718 of the same deed, No. 2016, No. 2010, Oct. 28, 2016) with the Plaintiff as the issuer (the agent of the issuer), and the date of issuance with the Defendant as the addressee, Oct. 21, 2016, and the date of payment, Oct. 28, 2016; and the face value of KRW 80,00,000,000.

On October 20, 2016, the above notarial deed accompanied the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and the Plaintiff’s power of attorney (a seal imprint; hereinafter “instant power of attorney”).

On October 24, 2016, the same law firm recognized the power of representation by the power of attorney attached to the certificate of personal seal impression of the principal, and around October 24, 2016, notified the plaintiff representative director C of the fact that the notarial deed of this case was prepared at the request of the agent D under Article 13

C. On the other hand, on the same day, the Defendant’s husband D and the Defendant separately prepared a promissory note of KRW 80 million at the face value with the Plaintiff’s issuer (the issuer’s agent D) and the Defendant’s addressee (No. 717 of the same deed, which was issued by a notary public). On the other hand, the Defendant issued a collection order under the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 2017Tz. 4303, April 2017 to September 2017, and issued a collection order under the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 2017Tz. 4303, 2017 and 2017Tz. 803.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings, and substantial facts to this court]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's representative director C has not granted his power to prepare the notarial deed of this case to D, and therefore, the notarial deed of this case is null and void, so compulsory execution should not be allowed.

B. (1) The indication of the recognition of execution that a notarial deed may have executory power as an executory title is against a notary public.