A. On January 9, 2013, Defendant A misrepresented the Plaintiff as the executive director of Company C on the part of January 9, 2013, and deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby lending KRW 100 million to Defendant A on January 10, 2013. The Defendant A shall pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 100 million and the damages for delay from January 10, 2013 to the date of full payment.

(b) Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act to which the Act and subordinate statutes apply (a judgment by service of public notice);

2. As to Defendant B

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that Defendant A misrepresented as the executive director of Company C and endorsed in the name of the said company in a promissory note, and borrowed KRW 100 million through the passbook account of Defendant B, the joint representative director of the said company and the joint representative director of the said company. Since Defendant B assisted Defendant A to commit an illegal act by allowing Defendant A to use the passbook account under his name, Defendant B shall compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

B. The Plaintiff, upon receiving a request from Defendant A to lend KRW 100 million to Defendant B’s corporate bank account on January 10, 2013, remitted the amount of KRW 100 million to Defendant B’s corporate bank account; the Defendants are vice versa; the fact that Defendant B is currently registered as joint representative director of Defendant B; there is no dispute between the parties; and in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 6 (including the serial number), Defendant A is deemed to be the executive director of Defendant A (representativeD) and endorsemented in the name of Defendant C (RepresentativeD) without authority in a promissory note issued by branch distribution.

However, the above facts alone are hard to recognize that Defendant B participated in Defendant A's illegal act, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.

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