A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the entire purport of the pleadings by Gap 1 and 2, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the amount of KRW 100 million to the defendant on March 10, 201 was set and lent as of April 30, 201.

B. If so, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan of KRW 100 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the borrowing of the instant money from the plaintiff is B, the former president of the Association, and that since B did not obtain the approval of the defendant's operating committee and the defendant's articles of incorporation, it is invalid as it goes beyond the representative authority of B.

However, even if the act was committed beyond the scope of representative authority of the representative director, the trust that the act was committed by a third party who does not know the restriction of representative authority shall be protected. The act committed by the representative director within the scope of representative authority shall be valid as a whole even if the representative director abused his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest, regardless of the company's profit. However, if the other party to the act knew or could have known the representative director's intention, it shall be null and void against the company. This is also applicable to cases where the representative director of a corporation under the Civil Act abused his/her representative authority.

In addition, even if the representative of a corporation does not undergo a resolution of the board of directors or the operating committee, it is only an internal decision-making of the corporation.

As such, if the other party to the transaction knew or could have known that the resolution was not made, the transaction is valid.

In this case, the other party to the transaction knew or could not have known that the resolution was made.