Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Summary

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lawful agency agreement with the Defendant for the supply of asphalts (hereinafter “instant database supply agreement”) and supplied the Defendant with a total amount of KRW 145,046,022 from November 30, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Meanwhile, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and D jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation for the price of the above container (limited to KRW 150 million).

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C and D to pay to the plaintiff 145,046,022 won and damages for delay.

B. Even if the right of representation of household D is not recognized, the defendant is obligated to pay the price for the container since the defendant ratified the transaction pursuant to the contract for the supply of the container of this case.

C. Furthermore, the defendant allowed D to use his name or trade name, and the plaintiff misleads the defendant as the business owner and made a business transaction. The defendant has a duty to pay the price for the asphalt as a nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence No. 2 is not admissible as a forged document, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the right of representation regarding the instant asphalt supply contract exists to D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① In other words, D stated that: (a) he/she was supplied with the database from E by the head of the Plaintiff’s business team; (b) was arbitrarily supplied in the name of “F” operated by the Defendant; and (c) was not granted any power of representation to the Defendant in connection with the asphalt transaction with the

(Witness D’s testimony). (2) Furthermore, D has any authority to prepare A’s text (Evidence A(2).