대여금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 200 million and the Defendants’ Incorporated Foundation B from February 1, 2014 to August 1, 2015.
1. On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff determined the cause of the claim to the Defendant Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated Foundation”) as KRW 200 million due to the repayment period of KRW 8,200,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”). Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation on the same day by taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 and 3 as well as the entire purport of the pleadings among the Plaintiff and the Defendant Incorporated Foundation, and Defendant C led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the Plaintiff extended the repayment period of the instant loan to January 31, 2014, and the interest rate is changed to KRW 20 million per annum (10% per annum).
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200 million and damages for delay incurred from February 1, 2014, which is the day following the due date for payment.
2. Determination on Defendant Incorporated Foundation’s defense
A. The summary of the defense 1) When the Defendant Incorporated Foundation borrows funds, the resolution of the board of directors was required at the time of the loan. However, the Plaintiff knew or could have known that there was no resolution of the board of directors at the time of the loan. 2) Furthermore, D, who is a director at the time of the loan of this case, borrowed the loan of this case from the Plaintiff by abusing the representative authority for the purpose of promoting his own interest or the Defendant C, regardless of the profit of the Defendant Incorporated Foundation, and the Plaintiff knew or could have known the abuse of D’
3) Therefore, the instant lending act is null and void against the Defendant Incorporated Foundation. (B) Even if the relevant legal doctrine does not go through a resolution of the board of directors by the representative director of a stock company, the resolution of the board of directors is merely an internal decision-making of the company.
Since the other party to the transaction was aware of the resolution of the board of directors.