The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the contract of this case was null and void because it was concluded with the company of this case with the company of this case and the company of this case (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter only referred to as the "Plaintiff") and it did not periodically pay interest at the 9% interest rate per annum under the contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and it constitutes a self-transaction which requires approval by the board of directors. However, although the contract of this case was concluded with the company of this case with the company of this case, the contract of this case was null and void because it did not approve (or ratification). However, the court below determined that the agreement of this case was valid since the contract of this case was not made with the company of this case, and the contract of this case was concluded with the company of this case with the company of this case with the company of this case and the contract of this case with the company of this case had a close cooperation relationship with the company of the plaintiff company of this case, and the company of this case did not pay interest at the 9% interest rate per annum.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

If only a part of a juristic act becomes null and void, the juristic act may be separated or part of the subject matter may be specified.