1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A notary public of the defendant against the plaintiff on March 2010 of the joint law office.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 30, 2008, the Plaintiff asserts that, at the time of preparing a loan certificate of KRW 300,000,000, which is the primary debtor, the obligee E (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) around September 30, 2008, the Defendant prepared the above document on behalf of the Plaintiff Company even though it is not the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and thus, the loan certificate of this case made by the Defendant without authority was forged.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in evidence No. 3, the defendant was released from office of the representative director of the plaintiff company on March 17, 2008 and around August 21, 2008 after he was appointed as the representative director of the plaintiff company on March 17, 2008, and the fact that he was appointed as the representative director of the plaintiff company on April 27, 2009 can be acknowledged. According to the above facts of recognition, around September 30, 2008, the defendant, who was the former representative director, maintains the rights and obligations of the representative director of the plaintiff company pursuant to Articles 386 (1) and 389 (3) of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do1622, Sept. 27, 1983). The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. On September 30, 2008, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff actually borrowed KRW 300,000,000 from E around September 30, 2008, and even if the loan was borrowed, it cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s obligation since the loan was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account or was not used for the operation of the Plaintiff company. Therefore, even if the Defendant repaid the above loan, it is not the Plaintiff’s obligation on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot acquire the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity.