All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s obligation to lend KRW 1 billion to the Plaintiff of the Seohae General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “west General Construction”) to the Plaintiff was concurrent performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s obligation to provide a collateral without limited real right, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that otherwise, the obligation to lend KRW 1 billion to the Seohae General Construction is the obligation to first be fulfilled.

In light of the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of a disposal document, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no validity of the Plaintiff’s general meeting of members and the resolution of the board of directors, which would sell the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Ho Young Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Ho Young Development”), on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, since the Seohae General Construction did not lend KRW

In light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the resolution of the general meeting of members or the invalidation of the board of directors’ resolution, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, concluded a sales contract or a loan for consumption against the resolution of the general meeting of members and the board of directors, and furthermore, even if D, in violation of the resolution of the general meeting of members and the board of directors, it was difficult to view that D’s comprehensive construction was aware or could have known

In light of the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on abuse of power of representation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, shall be a comprehensive construction.