대여금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 3, 2004, the defendant was appointed by Nonparty D as joint representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) with Nonparty D, and C completed the registration of joint representative rules on the 12th of the same month.
(Then, D resigned on August 4, 2005, and on August 24, 2005, the joint representative provision was repealed and the defendant resigned on the same day). (B)
Around November 16, 2004, the Defendant solely borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Company, and KRW 40,000,000 on December 18, 204, respectively, and written and delivered each payment note (Evidence A1 and 2) to the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking the payment of the instant loan, but on November 10, 2006, the Defendant solely borrowed the instant loan on behalf of C on the ground that the act of borrowing the instant loan on behalf of C is an act of unauthorized Representation and is null and void against C (The Chuncheon District Court Decision 2005Da10671), and the judgment of the first instance on December 9, 2006 became final and conclusive due to the failure to object thereto.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant litigation”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. In a case where there is a provision that allows several representative directors to jointly represent the company, one of the joint representative directors alone on behalf of the company without relation to the intention of other joint representative directors shall not be effective with respect to the company. Thus, as seen earlier, the Defendant borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff on behalf of Nonparty C solely without the delegation or consent of Nonparty D, the Defendant’s act of borrowing the instant loan from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff constitutes an unauthorized representative. According to the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant’s act of borrowing the instant loan constitutes an act of borrowing the instant loan from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the existence of the obligation to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff in the pertinent litigation