1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s law firm Oissia, written on January 13, 2012, prepared by the Defendant’s Plaintiff in January 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. C borrowed KRW 137,900,000 from September 2005 to May 2006 from Defendant five times.

B. C was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff on August 8, 2006, and retired on August 8, 2009, and on August 19, 2009, again retired on August 19, 2012.

C. C issued, as the Plaintiff’s representative director, a promissory note with a face value of KRW 150 million, the date of issuance on January 13, 2012, the payee, the Defendant, the place of issuance, and each side of the place of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). As to the issuance, C made an authentic deed of a promissory note (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) with a document No. 15 of January 13, 2012 as of January 2013, 2012.

On February 2, 2012, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order as to KRW 150 million among the loans for rearrangement project management projects and operating expenses of rearrangement projects to the Plaintiff’s F Housing Redevelopment and Improvement and Improvement and Improvement and Improvement and Improvement and Improvement and Improvement and Improvement and Improvement and Management Project Operational Expenses. On February 6, 2012, the Defendant issued the seizure and collection order on February 6, 2012. On March 13, 2013, the instant authentic deed was issued as the title of execution by Incheon District Court 2013TT7043 as the Plaintiff’s title of execution, and was issued a seizure and collection order as to KRW 150 million among the loans extended to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, Gap evidence 4-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The act performed by the representative director who judged the cause of the claim within the scope of the representative authority shall be effective as an act of the company even if the representative director abused his authority for the purpose of pursuing his own interest or a third party, regardless of the profit of the company: Provided, That if the other party to the act knew or could have known the intention of the representative director, it shall be null and void against the company.