부인 등
The judgment below
Of them, the notarial deeds of Promissory Notes No. 100, 201, drawn up on March 22, 2011.
The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the Notarial Deed of each Promissory Notes dated March 9, 2011 and March 15, 2011
A. The act performed by the representative director of a stock company within the scope of representative's right of representation is valid as a whole even if the representative director abused his authority for the purpose of pursuing his own or a third party's interest, regardless of the company's profit, and the act is invalid as against the company when the other party to the act knew or could have known the representative director
(1) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The court shall render a judgment as to whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity, by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the outcome of the examination of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da3649, Jul. 28, 2005).” The court shall render a judgment as to whether the facts duly established by the court of final appeal are binding on the
(Article 432 of the same Act). (b)
Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the following circumstances, held by J, the representative director of a rehabilitation company A (hereinafter “A”) and the representative director of the rehabilitation company A (hereinafter “A”) as of March 9, 201 and the first and second lending contract as of March 15, 2011 as of March 15, 201, in order to secure the payment of money borrowed from the Defendant or to prepare each notarial deed by issuing each promissory note as of March 9, 201 and March 15, 2011, constitutes an abuse of the power of representation for the purpose of promoting the interest of K Co., Ltd., a major shareholder, and the Defendant also knew or could have known the intention of J, and thus, each of the above lending contracts and promissory notes issued are null and void for A, and the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the original copy of each of the said promissory notes shall be denied.