1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant's Law Firm Multiurur, No. 1062, 2014 against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s Dong C, as a collateral for the Defendant’s obligation to pay loans, drafted one copy of a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) bearing the name of the Defendant, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 240 million, the payment date of KRW 50,000,000, and the Plaintiff’s name on December 5, 2014. In the issuer’s column, the Plaintiff’s Dong C written one copy of a promissory note with the Plaintiff’s seal affixed thereto (hereinafter “instant Promissory note”).

B. On the same day, C and the Defendant commissioned a notary public to the attorney-at-law in charge of the instant promissory note to prepare a certificate of subscription for a bill, which is written in D and Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed thereto) (hereinafter “the instant letter of attorney”) and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal issued directly on September 3, 2014.

The attorney-at-law in charge of authentication prepared a notarial deed to the effect that a notary public does not raise any objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution when he/she delays the payment of the said promissory note pursuant to Law Firm Multiurry No. 1062, 2014, and attached the power of attorney in charge of authentication and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression.

C. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the instant authentic deed to the Plaintiff E (hereinafter “E”) with the title of execution, with respect to the benefit claim against the Plaintiff’s joint stock company E (hereinafter “E”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Plaintiff did not grant C the right of representation to commission the preparation of the instant authentic deed, but C arbitrarily entrusted C with the preparation of the said authentic deed using the Plaintiff’s seal and a certificate of personal seal impression.

Therefore, the part of the above notarial deed against the plaintiff is null and void.