1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted, on behalf of the Plaintiff, the notarial deed of promissory notes (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) as follows, No. 314, 2017, as the notarial deed written by Law Firm C, as follows (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

An agent of the issuer of the No. 314 of the No. 317 No. 314 of the deed is the person who has issued the bill and affixed his/her name and seal to this deed, and when delay in the payment of the bill to the holder of the bill, if he/she delays compulsory execution, he/she entrusted the notarial deed to the effect that there is no objection to the bill, and signed and sealed it with the client.

The client(s) and the client(s) of the Plaintiff(s) and the Defendant(s) recognized it by the power of attorney attached to his certificate of personal seal impression.

(hereinafter omitted) B AD E

B. On April 11, 2019, the Defendant: (a) at the Seoul Northern District Court, made the debtor as “Plaintiff”; and (b) the third debtor as “F”; and (c) received a decision of seizure and collection as to the Plaintiff’s “the amount until it reaches KRW 300,032,200, out of the claim for the purchase and sale of real estate against F pursuant to the sales contract on real estate, including the real estate of KRW 239 square meters, which was concluded on October 15, 2018 between the Plaintiff and F, which was concluded on October 15, 2018 between the Plaintiff and F.”

(The grounds for recognition) The Seoul Northern District Court 2019 Taz. 4549. [Attachment] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is not sufficient to delegate the defendant with the authority to prepare the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is invalid as it was made upon the commission of an unauthorized representative. Even if not, the defendant's claim for the cause of the promissory note of this case is invested or lent to