2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that performed the construction work of a golf course from March 2006 to Kimcheon-si C, and the Defendant is a person residing in Kimcheon-si D.

B. On June 16, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) drafted a notarial deed stating that “the Plaintiff shall assume the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 132 million as of March 15, 2010; (b) shall pay KRW 20 million as of September 30, 201; (c) KRW 32 million as of December 31, 201; and (d) KRW 80 million as of July 31, 201. If the Plaintiff fails to perform his obligation, a notary public shall be aware that there is no objection immediately even if he is forced to perform his obligation.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The notarial deed of the Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid as it was prepared by E by abuse of power of representation without a resolution of the board of directors.

3. Even though the representative director of a stock company does not undergo an external transaction which requires a resolution of the board of directors, such resolution by the board of directors is merely an internal decision-making of the company.

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

In this case, if the other party to the transaction knew or could have known that the resolution was not adopted by the board of directors, the party who asserts that the resolution should be asserted.

In addition, even if the representative director of a corporation abused his authority for the purpose of promoting his own interest or a third party's profit regardless of the company's profit, the act performed by the representative director of the corporation within the scope of his representative director's right of representation shall be effective as an act of the company once of the abuse of authority. However, if the other party to the act knew or could have known

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on July 1, 2005