1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on November 19, 2015 with Daejeon District Court Decision 2015 tea7885.

On February 16, 2015, B, C was appointed as the joint representative director of the Plaintiff and the registration was completed on the day. D was appointed as the joint representative director of the Plaintiff on February 26, 2015 and registered on March 6, 2015.

On May 17, 2015, a contract for the sales of petroleum products (hereinafter “instant contract”) was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and only C of the Plaintiff’s joint representative director is indicated in the said contract.

The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the payment order to the Daejeon District Court as a sum of KRW 224,860,000 from August 17, 2015 to October 5, 2015 under the instant contract. The said court filed an application for payment order with the Daejeon District Court. On November 19, 2015, the said court issued a payment order with the content that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 224,860,000 to the Defendant and its delayed damages (hereinafter “instant payment order”). At that time, the instant payment order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that "the contract of this case is null and void as a joint representative director Eul entered into a single contract, and the plaintiff was not provided with oil from the defendant, and thus the plaintiff does not bear an oil payment obligation against the defendant," and the defendant argued to the effect that "the defendant supplied oil to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is presumed to have received a tax invoice from the defendant and received a value-added tax, and only one of the joint representative directors was contracted in the situation of the refund of value-added tax, and claiming invalidation is contrary to the principle of good faith."

However, if a joint representative director is appointed, the act of external representative of the company shall be jointly conducted by several representative directors (Article 389(2) of the Commercial Act).