대여금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from March 1, 2012.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “C. The representative director of the Defendant Company was changed to D, his wife, at the time of the preparation of the instant loan certificate; “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” and “C,” “C,” “C,” and “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” and “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” and “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” “C,” and “C,” “C,” “C,” and “C,” “C,” “C,” and “The fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the second to the second to the second to the
2. In addition, the part used after the representative director of a stock company comprehensively delegates his/her authority as the representative director to a third party to conduct the business of the company and allowing such third party to conduct the business of the company actually, even if such third party is a person in de facto control over the company, it is not permissible in violation of the purport of the representative director system, which is an act detrimental to the company’s interest, and thus, it cannot be permitted. Thus, a juristic act committed in the name of a person who is delegated the exercise of authority comprehensively by the representative director, unless he/she is individually and specifically delegated or consented by the representative director, is null and void as an act of unauthorized representation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do2016, Nov. 27, 2008; 201Da63185, Oct. 29, 2012). Therefore, even if C actually operated the defendant company and obtained comprehensive power from the representative director of the defendant company, the act of joint and several guarantee agreement made in the name of the defendant at the time of the loan.
2) In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole arguments, the court below held that Gap's 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers) could not operate the business under his/her own name, and that Eul who was a public official for the viewing of the audience E on March 12, 2010.