1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that the court’s reasoning for the first instance judgment is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of “written evidence No. 15” to “written evidence No. 15” to “185,670,000 won” in the fourth 16th 16th e.g., “185,670,000,” and the fifth 4th e.g., “written evidence No. 15”. Thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main text

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the assertion that the preparation of each of the instant notarial deeds in D’s assertion is null and void as a non-representative act, the actual representative director of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is the Plaintiff’s actual representative director E, D is merely a formal and nominal representative director, and there is no authority to conduct internal business as the representative director, and in external performance of business, E was individually and specifically instructed and supervised by E, and the Defendants were well aware of these circumstances. Moreover, D did not go through a resolution of the board of directors regarding the preparation of each of the instant notarial deeds. Accordingly, the preparation of each of the instant notarial deeds in D’s each of the instant notarial deeds is null and void as a non-representative act. 2) For the following reasons, it cannot be deemed that the preparation of each of the instant notarial deeds in

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept. (A) Evidence Nos. 4, 7 through 9, 13, and 21 (including additional numbers, and the same applies to the extent that it is not otherwise specified) as to whether D’s external power of representation exists.

It is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness of the first instance court and the witness D was limited at the time of the preparation of each of the notarial deeds in this case, and there is no other evidence.

Rather, considering that Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and some of the documents testimony of the above D, D's agency contract, total sales contract, sports equipment sales contract, and rental contract on behalf of the plaintiff after he/she takes office as the representative director of the plaintiff on May 21, 2014.