1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 32,00,000,000 on December 28, 2016, to the account held by the Defendant’s name cards, and KRW 18,50,000 on January 10, 2017, KRW 32,00,000 on January 24, 2017, and KRW 20,000 on February 21, 2017, and KRW 20,000 on April 24, 2017, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Upon the request of the Defendant’s director or apparent director, the Plaintiff lent the necessary emergency funds to the Defendant several times, and the remaining balance of the loaned funds after settling accounts of the amount returned, is KRW 4,800,000 on January 24, 2017, KRW 20,000 on February 21, 2017, and KRW 44,80,000,000 on April 24, 2017.

The defendant has not paid this up until now.

The defendant shall repay the above loan to the plaintiff.

B. Even if there was no legitimate power of representation against B, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the above borrowed amount that the Plaintiff sustained pursuant to Articles 401-2(1)3 and 401 of the Commercial Act, and Article 35(1) of the Civil Act, by implied consent of B’s active duty.

3. Determination

A. When the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that he lent money between the parties, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to the loan.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that B borrowed the said money on behalf of or representing the Defendant.

It is difficult to recognize that B borrowed the above money as a defendant's expression director.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. The liability for damages against a third party by a director under Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act is a requirement that a director neglects his/her duties due to bad faith or gross negligence, and thus, the failure of the company’s obligations due to ordinary transactions is merely bad faith or gross negligence.