beta
Text
1. Promissory notes No. 475, No. 2010, issued by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs on the law firm.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs jointly issued promissory notes to the Defendant at KRW 100 million at face value, KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,
B. On November 26, 2010, the Defendant filed an application for commencement of compulsory auction with respect to the said promissory note with a notary public as the agent of the Plaintiffs as the law firm No. 475, and ② on December 30, 2014, with the title of the said promissory note as the title, filed an application for commencement of compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s non-performance of KRW 5,309, G 9,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff with the Jung-gu District Court E, Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and KRW 919,00,000. On January 9, 2015, the said court received a decision to commence compulsory auction.
C. The Plaintiffs are married couple.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2, 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The plaintiffs, at the request of the defendant, prepared and delivered the above promissory note and the power of attorney to the defendant under the pretext of contingent fees for the cases entrusted with the performance of the lawsuit to the defendant, and immediately after the preparation and delivery of the above case, the defendant expressed his/her intention to withdraw delegation of the authority to prepare the said promissory note to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant prepared a written confirmation that the above promissory note should tear the power of attorney and invalidate the above promissory note. At the time of the preparation of the above promissory note, the defendant was not authorized to prepare the above promissory note on behalf of the defendant
As such, the above promissory note Notarial deed drawn up at the commission of the defendant, an unauthorized representative, has no effect as an executive title.
B. The plaintiffs share the above promissory note to the defendant on the pretext of contingent fees for the cases delegated to the defendant.