The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

In fact, the Plaintiff acquired the instant vehicle from a limited liability company D on September 1, 2014, and entered into an entrustment contract for the instant vehicle to D with a limited liability company on the same day.

Around September 19, 2014, the Defendant, through the brokerage of G, lent KRW 90,000,000 at the rate of 12.9% per annum and 29% per annum, and entered into a loan agreement with the principal and interest of each month in equal installments (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). In addition, the Defendant entered into an agreement with a limited liability company D (Representative C) to register the creation of mortgage on the instant automobile in order to secure the obligation of the instant loan between the Defendant and D (Representative C) (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”).

On September 24, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of the creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the creation of a mortgage of this case”) with the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the D, the limited liability company D, the debtor E, and the bond price of KRW 90,000,00.

From September 22, 2014 to October 10, 2014, the Defendant spent approximately KRW 46,00,000 for the termination of attachment of the instant automobile and the cancellation of the existing mortgage creation, among the above loans, and paid the remainder to D by a limited liability company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), testimony of witness G of the first instance court, assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the judgment, the purport of the loan agreement of this case was not entered into with genuine intent, and C entered into the loan agreement of this case by stealing by stealing the name of E with judgment ability. Thus, the loan agreement of this case is null and void.

In order to register the creation of mortgage of this case, the resolution of the general meeting of members of the limited company D was not required, so the registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case by the representative director C is null and void as an illegal representative act.

C. The representative director shall be himself or a third person.