2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. C loaned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, which became aware of as a result of D Introduction on January 2013, 2013, to pay KRW 40 million up to February 28, 2013 and offer it as a security after the completion of the apartment complex located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan. On January 15, 2013, C issued to the Plaintiff a loan certificate with the lender “F Company B (Defendant)” and the joint guarantor “C” (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”), and received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff to the bank account in the name of F Company B (Defendant).

B. At the time C was operating a construction business under the trade name of “F Company” with the Defendant, a female employee, as the representative of the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, C died at the time of the instant lawsuit.

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

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, as the Defendant prepared the instant loan certificate, the borrower is responsible for the repayment of the instant loan as the lender, but, as the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1-1 cannot be used as evidence because there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the representative jointly operated by the Defendant and jointly operated the F Company with C, C is responsible for preparing the instant loan certificate and repaying the above amount borrowed as business funds.

However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant operates the construction business with the trade name of the F Company, the name of which the Defendant was the representative of the F Company, (the Defendant was led to the confession, but the Defendant revoked it by the statement in the preparatory document dated May 25, 2016, but there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and the above revocation is not effective). The above fact alone is the comprehensive authority of the Defendant to represent C.