1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from C and D on February 23, 2007 as raw material price, and the interest rate of KRW 1 million per month for KRW 40 million borrowed on February 13, 2007, and KRW 500,000 per month for KRW 30 million borrowed on February 23, 2007, and KRW 20,000 per month for KRW 10,000,000 per month for KRW 30 million borrowed on February 23, 2007, and the date of redemption shall be until December 31, 2007. The Plaintiff’s name and seal of KRW 30,00 as representative of the Defendant, D’s signature and seal of KRW 770,00,00 for KRW 30,000,00 for the interest rate of KRW 30,000,00 for KRW 31,31,200 for the interest rate of KRW 20,000.

B. Even if the Defendant did not grant a loan authority to C or D.

Even if C and D actually operated the Defendant, and there is a reasonable ground to believe that the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff had the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant, so the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code is established. Furthermore, the Defendant ratified C and D’s act of unauthorized Representation in the course of repaying the Plaintiff’s principal and interest of the loan amounting to KRW 70 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal and interest of the lending stated in the purport of the claim and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of the right of representation, No. 1 (Evidence) of the judgment on the assertion is written by the Defendant as the borrower, but the seal of the Defendant is not affixed, and C and D merely signed and sealed as the representative of the Defendant. The evidence submitted in the instant case alone is insufficient to recognize that C and D have the authority to prepare the above loan certificate on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

According to the statement Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same) of Eul, there is a legal dispute between the present representative of the defendant, C and D about the ownership of the defendant's shares.