1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim that has been changed in exchange at the trial, shall be changed as follows:

1. Determination on the loan amount of KRW 200 million

A. As to the plaintiff's primary claim, in full view of the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-3 and Eul's testimony at the court of first instance, the plaintiff's agreement between G and the defendant's president on February 26, 2007 to make a loan of KRW 200 million to the defendant with the interest rate of KRW 10.5% per annum and the due date of payment on May 30, 2007, and remitted KRW 200 million to the account in the name of the defendant's name on the same day, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan of KRW 200 million and interest and delay damages to the plaintiff, since the above loan of the defendant made without deliberation and resolution by the board of directors of the defendant or permission by the competent authorities of the defendant violates the Private School Act, it cannot be complied with the plaintiff's claim.

In the case where a school foundation acquires or disposes of the property of a school foundation without going through a deliberation and resolution procedure by the board of directors under Article 16 (1) of the Private School Act, or performs an obligation without permission from the competent agency under Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act, such act is null and void, and it does not take effect even if the school foundation ratified the above act of obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da23444, Sept. 5, 200). According to the evidence No. 1 No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant was a school foundation established for the purpose of establishing and operating a H university at around 2001, and the defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the plaintiff on February 26, 2007, the defendant constitutes "an act of obligation under Article 16 (1) 1 of the Private School Act and "an act of obligation under the main sentence of Article 28 (1) of the same Act" and "an act of obligation under the above defendant at the time of borrowing.

shall be deemed to have been permitted by or to have been permitted by the competent authorities.