beta
Text
1. A deed drawn up by Daejeon General Law Firm on October 10, 2005 by the defendant's notary public against the plaintiff, No. 3788 of 2005.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 10, 2005, the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff, who is the obligee himself and the obligor, with the preparation of a notarial deed as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that “The Defendant lent KRW 6,000,000 to the Plaintiff on March 111, 2005, and if the Plaintiff delayed the performance of the obligation, even if it was forced to enforce the obligation, it was recognized that there was no objection.”
B. On June 2014, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for re-issuance of the defaulters’ list, etc. in this Court No. 2014Kao380 with the title of execution of the instant No. 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The indication of recognition and recognition of execution, which allows a judgment on the cause of the claim to have executory power as a title of debt, is an act against a notary public, and thus, in case where a notarial deed is prepared upon a commission of an unauthorized representative, it is not effective as a title of debt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803, Mar. 24, 2006). The burden of proving that the notarial deed has the power to prepare such notarial deed is an effect to the creditor who claims its effect. The establishment of the notarial deed's authenticity is presumed to have been made by a notary public, but it is not naturally acknowledged that the agent merely entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed, and that there is a legitimate power to represent the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114 Decided June 28, 2002, etc.). Although there is no dispute between the parties that the following seals are affixed to the Plaintiff’s name and the Plaintiff’s seal, in full view of the purport of the entire oral argument, C, who kept the Plaintiff’s seal and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal without the Plaintiff’s permission, may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff’s seal and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal and affixed the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 1.