1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

C. The document drawn up on May 17, 2017 against the defendant's plaintiff.

1. Recognizing the facts of recognition and the grounds for the court’s assertion on this part are as stated in Articles 1 and 20 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial dismissal as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as in the judgment of the court of first instance). Nos. 2, 14 "Plaintiff" was added to "Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Plaintiff") or "Plaintiff".

Part 3 2, 4, and 8 "D" shall be respectively raised to "J".

Part 3: The following shall be added to Part 11:

In addition, the Plaintiff Company was operated as the joint representative director of E and I at the time of the instant notarial deed preparation (the Plaintiff Company registered as the joint representative director on May 16, 2017), and the Plaintiff Company independently made the instant notarial deed preparation on behalf of the Plaintiff Company on behalf of the Plaintiff Company without any delegation or consent of I, other joint representative director, which is the joint representative director. Therefore, the instant notarial deed preparation act constitutes an act of unauthorized representation, and thus, it is invalid for the Plaintiff Company, and there is no validity for the Plaintiff Company, and there is no compulsory execution based thereon. Even if the instant notarial deed preparation act is not invalidated against the Plaintiff Company due to abuse of power of representation, etc., even if it is not invalidated against the Plaintiff Company due to abuse of power of representation, the Plaintiff Company paid all 60 million won to the Defendant, thereby seeking the exclusion of its executive force as to the portion repaid in accordance with the order of statutory appropriation.

In addition, even if the plaintiff company was operated as a joint representative of E and I at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed in this case, since only one of the joint representative directors is delegated by I, the other joint representative director, the preparation of the notarial deed in this case is not an act of non-representative. Therefore, the validity of the plaintiff company is recognized."

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine corporation.