beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (defendant)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (the defendant for retrial) shall bear the total cost of the lawsuit before and after the retrial.
Reasons
1. On December 1, 2009, the court held that, at the time of the case subject to review, Nonparty J was not a director or representative director of the defendant (the plaintiff for review, hereinafter "the defendant") at the time of the commencement of the case subject to review, and that on the date of pleading, Nonparty J directly served a complaint of the case subject to review as the representative director of the defendant, submitted a reply, etc., and presented it on the date of pleading. This court rendered an interim judgment revoking the judgment subject to review, on the ground that: (a) a person who has no power of representation to conduct litigation for the defendant was conducting procedural acts for the defendant; and (b) a person who has no power of representation to do so
This decision is in the entirety of the above intermediate judgments.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 10, 2004, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s loan claim against Nonparty D to D, who was a joint representative director of the Defendant (the trade name at that time changed to “Co., Ltd. C” and “Co. B” on August 6, 2009) with the maturity of KRW 120 million after the lapse of one week (hereinafter “instant loan”). However, the Plaintiff was not able to receive the loan at that time.
B. 1) On November 18, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the contract form between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the real estate listed in the attached Form 502 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and changed the date of the preparation into the real estate listed in the attached Form 502 as of November 18, 2004 (hereinafter “instant contract form”) with the Plaintiff’s representative director D, and the seller, the Plaintiff, the purchaser, and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received the contract form with the Plaintiff, stating that all the Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff. The Defendant decided that the above contract form was null and void when the Defendant repaid the instant loan to the Plaintiff by December 18, 2004.