청구이의
1. On February 8, 2013, the Defendant’s notary public C office against the Plaintiff, notarial deeds for loans for consumption, No. 168, 2013.
1. The fact that, on February 8, 2013, the agent E of the Plaintiff (former representative D) entrusted the Plaintiff’s agent E to prepare a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) with the content that “the Plaintiff, on February 8, 2013, borrowed KRW 170,000,000 from the Defendant on February 8, 2013, with the maturity of KRW 170,000,000 from the Defendant as of February 12, 2015 as the interest rate of KRW 30% (the calculation from February 12, 2013, and the payment is made 12th day each month) and deliver it to the Defendant who is the obligee is either disputed between the parties or may be recognized by the statement in subparagraph 1.
2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that, for the following reasons, since there is no obligation under the monetary loan contract of this case, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be denied.
On the other hand, on February 12, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 100,000 from the Defendant to Nonparty F’s deposit account, but did not receive the remainder of KRW 70,000,000,000. Therefore, the actual amount of loan was KRW 100,000, and the actual amount of loan was KRW 50,000,000 with G’s account with the Defendant’s consent, and all of them were remitted to G’s account on November 29, 2013 and December 5, 200, respectively.
Preliminaryly, the conclusion of the instant monetary loan agreement is a matter that requires the resolution of the board of directors in accordance with Article 40 subparagraph 6 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation as a loan act, and it did not go through such procedures. D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, abused his authority for the purpose of pursuing the personal interest of E, which is his own form, and the Defendant knew or could have known that there was no resolution of the board of directors, and that the instant monetary loan agreement was an abuse of authority, and thus, is null
In addition, the obligation to return loans under the monetary loan contract of this case is only the personal obligation of D, which was the representative director of the plaintiff, not the plaintiff's obligation.
3. Determination
A. First of all, as to the primary argument, whether the amount actually borrowed by the Plaintiff from the Defendant is KRW 1,00,000, not KRW 170,000, not KRW 100,000;