(a) describe the part of the claim against the defendant B in the "attached Form to the indication of the claim";

(b) Confession of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. According to the evidence No. 5 of the judgment as to the claim against the defendant C, the defendant C prepared a "financial guarantee document" stating to the effect that "if the defendant B caused any damage to the plaintiff due to intention or negligence in connection with the automobile transaction while in office, he/she shall be liable for all damages to him/her as the guarantor" to the plaintiff. It is difficult to view that the defendant C guaranteed the obligation to the plaintiff for the loan to the plaintiff by the defendant C under the above financial guarantee document.

The Plaintiff embezzled KRW 51,800,000 paid to Defendant B as business funds (automobile purchase funds). As such, Defendant C, as a financial guarantee, is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 51,800,000 to the Plaintiff and its delay damages. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid KRW 51,80,000 to Defendant B as business funds for automobile purchase, or that Defendant B embezzled this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the claim against the defendant C is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.