2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. D, the representative director of the defendant company, who is the representative director of the defendant company, to determine the argument of the defendant company A (hereinafter "the defendant company"), asserts that since it concluded the lease contract of this case before it takes office as the representative director of the defendant company, the plaintiff's claim

D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was appointed on February 3, 2016, and the instant lease agreement was concluded on June 9, 2015 between the parties. However, as seen earlier, as long as the instant lease agreement under the name of the Defendant Company was duly formed, the representative director of the Defendant Company was replaced.

Since the defendant company is not exempted from its responsibility, the above argument of the defendant company is without merit.

B. As to the assertion by Defendant C, Defendant C, while working for the Defendant Company at the time, puts the seal of the Plaintiff on the column of joint and several sureties under the lease agreement of this case without authority, Defendant C asserts that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

However, according to each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it is deemed that Defendant C did not directly affix his seal to the lease contract of this case as of June 9, 2015. However, it is deemed that Defendant C paid 6 million won out of the lease fees of this case to the Plaintiff four times, as acknowledged by the above evidence, in full view of the following facts: (a) evidence Nos. 2, and No. 7 (a) are written; (b) and (c) evidence Nos. 3 (a) are written; and (c) Defendant C stated to the purport that Defendant C consents to the entry of joint and several sureties, in the Plaintiff’s exchange with the Plaintiff’s counselor at around June 15, 2015; and (d) the lease contract of this case with the authority delegated by Defendant C around June 9, 2015.