1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 4, 2010, according to E’s delegation by both the Defendant and the Plaintiff, at the time of the Plaintiff, representing in-house directors D, the Defendant lent KRW 144,00,000 to the Plaintiff on April 16, 2010 as the maturity date for payment on April 16, 2013. The instant notarial deed was prepared with the content of joint and several guarantee by D. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the Seoul Southern District Court 2018Tnam District Court 2018TTTTTTT 13505, and collected KRW 44,112,80 from the FF Association, the garnishee on October 17, 2018, there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that D delegated D to E the preparation of a notarial deed in order to secure personal debts, and prepared a false notarial deed by using the opportunity, or that the preparation of the notarial deed in this case is null and void because there is no resolution of the board of directors under Article 393 (1) of the Commercial Act as a loan of a corporation's large assets.

As to this, the Defendant: (a) at the time D operated G Co., Ltd. at the same time, the Defendant subrogated for the debt to D Co., Ltd.; and (b) D, the only director at the time of around 2010, made a decision that the Plaintiff assumed the said debt; and (c) paid part of the interest from May 2010 to November 2017. Therefore, the instant Notarial Deed is lawful.

It is insufficient to recognize that E prepared a false notarial deed beyond the scope delegated by D solely with the statement of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. There is no specific assertion that the above debt burden constitutes a large-scale asset to the Plaintiff. According to the statement of evidence Nos. 1, D is the only director at the time and it cannot be deemed that the resolution of the board of directors is essential.