A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C claiming the purchase price of goods under the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Ga202409, Suwon District Court Decision 2017Da202409, stating that “The Defendant, despite having supplied the Plaintiff with a small storage tank, etc. from April 2015 to September 2015, paid only KRW 19,462,00 of the supply price of goods to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 21,502,00.”

B. On March 22, 2017, the foregoing court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to order the Defendant to pay the Defendant’s claim amount, and the decision was finalized around that time because the Plaintiff and C did not raise any objection thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not have concluded a purchase contract as alleged by the Defendant, and C merely forged a purchase contract under the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, since the instant performance recommendation decision is based on a non-existent goods-price claim, compulsory execution based on the instant performance recommendation decision should be denied. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is sufficient to fully recognize the fact that C performed a purchase contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the tax invoice, transaction director, and joint and several sureties’s contract submitted by the Defendant as evidence at the time of the instant performance recommendation decision, even if C performed a non-exclusive act, it should be deemed that C was ratified the act of non-authorized representation.

C. Even if the Plaintiff is not liable for the payment of the goods price, the Plaintiff can be exempted from liability as an employer for the illegal act of C, a business employee.