A. On February 16, 2005, the Plaintiff decided to purchase gift certificates from Defendant B, who operates the D hotel entertainment room, and paid KRW 60 million in the form of a security deposit. Defendant B, on the same day, prepared a cash custody certificate with the purport that he received the above KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff. Defendant C entered the resident registration number on the signature and seal of the above B in the cash custody certificate and signed it.

(hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”). (b)

However, as Defendant B was unable to reduce the gift certificates indicated in the cash storage certificate of this case, Defendant B, upon cancelling the gift certificates sales contract, drafted a document stating that on April 4, 2005, the Plaintiff would return the amount of KRW 60 million as the amount of the cancellation of the gift certificates to the Plaintiff by April 41, 2005.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant cancellation paper”) 2. Judgment

A. According to Article 3 of the Commercial Act of the Defendants’ obligation to pay money, the Commercial Act applies to all the parties when one of the parties engages in a commercial activity. Thus, the Commercial Act applies to all the parties even if one of the parties engages in a commercial activity only (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da68207, Apr. 10, 2014). According to Article 57 of the Commercial Act, if several of the parties bears an obligation on one of them due to an act that constitutes a commercial activity, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the said obligation. According to the above facts, the Defendant C’s signing on the cash storage certificate of this case is deemed jointly and severally liable for the payment of the said obligation amounting to KRW 60,000,000 against the Plaintiff of the Defendant B in relation to the commercial activity that is a entertainment business of the Defendant B. In full view of the reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intent, Defendant C also constitutes jointly and severally liable for the said KRW 60 million.

On the other hand, Defendant C argues that the signing of the cash custody certificate of this case is merely a mere confirmation position, but the above assertion is earlier.