1. The Defendant’s KRW 120,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2015 to December 8, 2015, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a joint business agreement with B claiming that the Defendant’s agent is the “joint business agreement” and paid 200 million won in investments.

B. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to receive a refund of 200 million won from B claiming that he/she is the Defendant’s agent until December 31, 2014, as “performance note.”

[Evidences: No dispute or Gap 1, 2]

2. The following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts supporting the cause of the claim and the overall purport of the arguments in this case’s documentary evidence, the witness C testimony, and the examination on the defendant’s representative D: (i) the defendant company was appointed as the representative director at the time of establishment on July 1, 2005 and resigned from office on July 1, 2005, and the present representative D was appointed as the representative director; (ii) even after the resignation of the representative director, Eul had been aware of the defendant’s representative director, and (iii) had been aware of the fact, separate from the “Joint Business Convention”, B filed a claim for the supply of non-ferrous metal from the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, and the judgment in favor was rendered without dispute by the defendant; (iv) while D did not properly manage or manage the defendant company, the defendant company presented the defendant’s corporate seal impression and personal seal impression while entering into the “Joint Business Agreement,” and (iv) the two and D are subordinate departments, it is recognized that the defendant company is actually or authorized to act on behalf of the defendant.

Supplementaryly, the defendant agreed upon B’s conduct of representative, and expressed B’s power of representation to unspecified transaction parties, including the plaintiff, as it used corporate sense and certificate of personal seal for the company’s business. The "Joint Project Convention" concluded with the plaintiff within the scope of the power of representation is effective to the defendant in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency.

(Civil Code 125).