1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs, No. 552, Apr. 25, 2016, No. 2016.

1. The facts of recognition: F prepares a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay 150 million won from F on April 25, 2016 to F on and from September 24, 2016, and shall lend interest at 25% per annum” under Article 552 of the 552 of the 2016 deed as the representative of the Plaintiffs’ notary public entrusted to E., which is a notary public; F transfers a claim based on the instant notarial deed on the same day to the Defendant on May 13, 2016; the fact that the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the transfer of claims on behalf of F does not conflict between the parties; or that the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the transfer of claims on or around May 13, 2016 is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as evidence Nos. 1, 2 evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2, and 5-1.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) since the plaintiff's assertion F prepared the notarial deed of this case as the representative of the plaintiffs without the right of representation, the notarial deed of this case is null and void, and even if not, it is intended to offset the claims based on the notarial deed of this case with the plaintiffs' claims against F. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be denied. 2) Since the defendant's assertion F prepared the notarial deed of this case with legitimate power granted from the plaintiffs, the notarial deed of this case is valid.

B. Determination 1) The indication of recognition of execution that a notarial deed allows a notary public to 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 the event a notarial deed is prepared upon commission of an unauthorized representative, and the burden of proof as to the existence of power to prepare such a notarial deed is against the creditor who asserts its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18114, Jun. 28, 2002).