1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. Ulsan District Court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) “Nit.” Following the fourth 1st judgment of the first instance court, add “Nit.” below:

【 Also, the Defendant, by having D entrust D with the Plaintiff’s seal impression and seal impression, granted the Plaintiff’s comprehensive power of attorney regarding the Plaintiff’s overall business, including the preparation of the notarial deed, and D, based on these power of attorney, claimed that the notarial deed of this case is valid.

(b) From the fourth fifth to the fifth fifth fifth of the judgment of the first instance court, the fifth to the fifth is advanced as follows:

2) As to the instant case, the facts that E and D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, at the time of the preparation of the Notarial Deed, were in de facto marital relationship, and D, at the time of the preparation of the Notarial Deed, submitted the power of attorney as the mandator, as the Plaintiff’s delegate, and the fact that D submitted the instant power of attorney

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the above facts alone awarded the power of attorney to commission Eul to prepare a notarial deed at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff granted a comprehensive power of representation on the overall business of the Plaintiff, including the preparation of the notarial deed in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. A) solely on the ground that D had the Plaintiff’s seal impression and seal impression at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed in this case, it is immediately deemed that D was authorized to represent the Plaintiff as to the preparation of the notarial deed in this