The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

The plaintiff's attorney asserts that the non-party 4, the primary debtor, claiming the performance of guaranteed obligations against the defendant association because the non-party 4, who is a special corporation established under the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act, is its partner, and the defendant association carries out the business prescribed in Article 8 of the same Act in order to achieve the purpose stipulated in Article 1 of the same Act. The defendant association only carries on the business for the members, but also does not carry on any business for the general public, but also cannot bear the guaranteed obligations against the members. Thus, even if the non-party 4, who is the primary debtor, is the representative of the defendant association, the representative of the defendant association is appointed by the general meeting and the representative of the director is appointed (see Article 19 of the same Act), and the non-party 3 of the branch office of the defendant association is different from the corporation under the Civil Act or the Commercial Act, and the non-party 4 of the defendant association's principal construction association or the public organization's construction machinery and equipment for the purpose of offering the guaranteed obligations to the defendant association without any authority to do so.

(i)tender guarantees for construction works to be contracted by members by the State or a public organization, and contract guarantees for and warranty guarantees for defects in contracted construction works;

(b) Providing loans or arranging loans for construction works of the state or public organizations to which members receive contracts, upon request by members;

(c) on behalf of members for the supply of machinery and materials for construction works, or mediation therefor;

(4) It is necessary to conduct the business incidental to the preceding 3 business. (See Article 8 of the same Act) The non-party 6 limited partnership company (hereinafter referred to as the "six companies") has no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the non-party 4 works for the non-party 6 company and the non-party 4 works for the non-party 6 company. It is clear that the non-party 4 is the plaintiff and the non-party 1 bears witness testimony of the court of first instance. Accordingly, the non-party 4 of this case is not a member of the defendant union. Meanwhile, according to the contents of the evidence No. 2 of this case, the non-party 2 without dispute, the association established its branch offices in each Do other than the Gyeonggi-do and the head of each branch office is appointed by the chairperson to perform the business of lending and arranging the contract guarantee for the members of the defendant union within the scope delegated by the president (see Articles 1, 5, 7, and 8 of the Rules on the Establishment of Branch Offices). Thus, it cannot be viewed that the non-party 4 company will represent the defendant association.

As to this, although the plaintiff's representative bears the same guarantee obligation as in the above domestic branch office's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1

Then, although the plaintiff's legal representative is not a domestic case, it has a close or close relation to the financing and mediation of funds, which are the original duties of the defendant's association, and in light of the previous case of handling affairs at the above branch office, it is recognized that the act belongs to the scope of duties or is closely related to such act. Thus, the defendant's legal representative should be held liable as the employer for the above act of the non-party 3. Thus, the above defendant's legal representative should first be held liable for damages. Thus, the defendant's legal representative should be held liable for damages for the above act of the non-party 3 as the owner of the above branch office's main duties. The defendant's legal representative is held liable for damages caused to the third party by the employee's execution of the original duties or execution of the original duties. Thus, the non-party 3 bears the guaranteed obligation in the amount of money of the non-party 4, not the member of the defendant's association. Thus, it is not a close act of the branch office's original duties. Thus, the defendant's legal representative cannot be rejected.

If so, the plaintiff's claim for this case is groundless and dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance court, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so revoked and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost the plaintiff.

Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)