beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff No. 1201, Sept. 6, 2013, signed by the New and Joint Law Office on September 6, 2013.
Reasons
1. On September 6, 2013, C shall act on behalf of the Plaintiff: (a) issue to the Defendant a promissory note No. 1,350,000 won at the issuer, the payee, the Defendant, the face value of 1,350,000, the issue date; (b) September 6, 2013; and (c) make a notarial deed stating Seoul at the payment date, the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”); and (b) entrust the Defendant with the preparation of a notarial deed stating that “if a notary public delays the payment of the instant promissory note to the holder of the instant promissory note, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have no objection even if he is subject to compulsory execution.” On the same day, C received from the said office a notarial deed of a promissory note No. 1201, Sept. 6, 2013 (No. 2013, hereinafter “notarial deed”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case, promissory notes and notarial deeds are invalid as they are prepared by C, which is not authorized to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, seek to exclude the enforcement force of the notarial deed.
3. Determination
A. The indication of the recognition and recognition of execution that a notarial deed of related legal principles may have executory power as a title of debt is an act of litigation against a notary public, so it is not effective as a title of debt in case where a notarial deed is prepared by a commission of an unauthorized representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803, Mar. 24, 2006). The burden of proving that there is an authority to prepare such a notarial deed has an effect on the creditor who has asserted its effect, and the fact that the notarial deed was established directly by a notary public of a notarial deed, but it is presumed that the notarial deed was made by the agent to commission the preparation of a notarial deed and that
Supreme Court Decision 201Na1488 delivered on February 22, 1994