1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is based on the notarial deed No. 1985, No. 1985, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D as the father of the Plaintiff on May 29, 2013, issued the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and identification card using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint and identification card.

B. On May 29, 2013, D: (a) a notary public, at a law firm C office, prepared a power of attorney in the name of the Plaintiff using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate; and (b) the said law firm, “the Defendant, on May 29, 2013, set the amount of KRW 50 million to D on May 29, 2014, and lent interest rate of KRW 20% per annum. The Plaintiff is jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the said obligation within the limit of KRW 60 million. If D and the Plaintiff fail to perform the said obligation, a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the purport that “if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution, he/she is not dissatisfied with the said obligation,” and the said law firm drafted the notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the said content as above (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. D. D. F.D.

As stated in paragraph (1), a summary order (No. 2019Da325) was issued on March 14, 2019 on the ground that the power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff and written request for notarial acts were forged, and that the above law firm's employees committed the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering was committed, and on March 14, 2019, sentenced to a fine of three million won from the support of the Daejeon District Court. The above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 4 and 5 evidence (including paper numbers), witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant notarial deed was made out by the power of attorney forged by D and by the letter of request for notarial deed. Thus, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should not be permitted. 2) Defendant D was entitled to commission the Plaintiff to prepare the instant notarial deed on behalf of the Plaintiff, and at least the Defendant has justifiable grounds to believe that D has such power of attorney. Thus, the Plaintiff is liable under the instant notarial deed.

(b).