1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C, on December 23, 201, borrowed KRW 150 million from the Defendant as security the production machinery of the distressed field, and agreed to repay KRW 200 million by February 29, 2012, when borrowing KRW 150 million from the Defendant as security.

B. D, on August 17, 2012, registered C as a nominal representative director, when establishing a Plaintiff Company on August 17, 2012 for the purpose of real estate development and sale business.

However, C above A.

When it was impossible to repay the borrowed amount to the Defendant under the claim, on September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff’s nominal representative director was reissued without permission on September 5, 2013, and on November 26, 2013, the instant authentic deed was drawn up and issued to the Defendant on January 4, 2012, stating that “The Defendant made a loan by setting the amount of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff on January 4, 2012 at interest rate of 25% per annum and by December 15, 2014.”

C. On January 10, 2013, D knew of C’s above act, D made a registration of dismissal to dismiss C as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness C and D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that C is the representative of the Plaintiff Company, thereby making the instant notarial deed between the Defendant and the Defendant by abusing his authority for his own interest, and the Defendant knew or could have known of the intention of C, and thus, the instant notarial deed is null and void.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.

3. The act performed by the representative director of the judgment company within the scope of representative authority shall be effective once as an act of the company even though 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, and the act shall be null and void when the other party to the act knew or could have known the intention of the representative director.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da23807 Decided May 15, 2008).