1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court renders a dismissal or an additional determination under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as follows.

[Attachment] The five-party 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance “A” through seven-party 5th of the judgment are as follows.

The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s principal claim in contrast to the judgment of the first instance on April 21, 2017, on the ground that the act of creating a right to collateral security is not required to be permitted by the competent authority, and rendered a judgment dismissing all the Defendant’s assertion that the act of lending the right to representation was not subject to a resolution of the board of directors, or that the act of leasing the right to representation constitutes abuse of power and thus becomes null and void, and rendered a judgment dismissing only the part of the principal and the damages for delay (Counterclaim) (see, e.g., Gwangju High Court 2015Na15787 (principal claim), 2015Na15817 (Counterclaim)). As to this, the Defendant appealed, but the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on August 30, 2017, and dismissed the lower court’s appeal, adding “No. 4 evidence” to “No. 58 (Reasons for Recognition

2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the establishment of a collateral security agreement constitutes an act of disposal of fundamental property, which constitutes an act of disposal of fundamental property, must obtain permission from the competent authority. Since the establishment of a collateral security agreement constitutes an act of disposal of fundamental property of the Defendant, it is null and void as it did not obtain permission from the competent authority. As such, the agreement on the lease of this case and the agreement on the penalty for breach of trust in an indivisible relationship is null and void. 2) The Civil Act, which determines that the matters concerning the assets of the Incorporated Foundation are stated in the articles of incorporation (Article 43 and Article 40 subparag. 4 of the Civil Act), requires the permission from the competent authority at the time of establishment (Article 32