2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The auditor D of the Defendant Company borrowed money from the Plaintiff as the Defendant Company’s auditor was insufficient to provide funds necessary for the Ko Chang-gun E lending Corporation, and used it for the Defendant Company. Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the borrowed money as the principal debtor of the instant borrowed money. 2) The Defendant Company D has no authority to borrow money on behalf of the Defendant Company, and there is no fact that the representative director of the Defendant Company has approved or ratified it.

Therefore, Defendant Company did not have an obligation to repay the instant rent.

B. On April 4, 2016, as of April 7, 2016, the judgment on the loan amount as of April 7, 2016, the statement (including the serial number) Nos. 1 through 6, 9, and 10, and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleadings, ① at the time of preparation of the loan Nos. 1 and 2, F, who was the representative director of the defendant company, was the actual operator of the defendant company, stated to the effect that “C at the time, was the actual operator of the defendant company,” and C stated to the effect that “C, as the actual operator of the defendant company, granted D the authority to borrow money in the name of the defendant company to raise the business funds of the defendant company.” ② At the time of preparation of the loan certificate No. 1, D stated to the effect that “The defendant company was granted the authority to borrow money in the name of the defendant company to raise the business funds of the defendant company.” ② At the time of execution of the loan certificate, the defendant company’s account No. 200.