A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 120,000 from the Plaintiff C and lent KRW 120,000 to the Defendant, but the Defendant offsets KRW 40,000 among them against the Plaintiff’s claim, and thus, is liable to pay the remainder of KRW 80,00,000.

B. The defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and even if he borrowed money from home, the plaintiff lent money to the defendant as the representative director of the defendant, and is null and void since it traded without approval of the board of directors under Article 398 of the Commercial Act

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1-18 (including additional numbers), witness D's testimony, the plaintiff borrowed KRW 40,000,000 on August 1, 2006, and KRW 150,000 on September 2, 2008 and lent it to the defendant. The defendant repaid KRW 50,000,000 among them on September 3, 2008. The above transactions had no accounting accounts on October 31, 2012. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to offset the defendant's claims against the plaintiff on December 31, 2012. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the above defendant is obligated to deliver KRW 80,000,000 to the plaintiff on September 3, 200, KRW 2000, KRW 3000,000 on this case's annual interest rate of KRW 30,000,000.

B. The act of lending money to a director who is likely to conflict between the company and the director in violation of Article 398 of the Commercial Act constitutes an act of self-transaction by the director under Article 398 of the Commercial Act, and thus requires the approval of the board of directors. However, where a director lends money to the company without any collateral agreement or interest agreement, such as lending money to the company, there is no risk of disadvantage to the company due to a conflict of interest between