According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the salary class of the representative director of the defendant company was jointly and severally guaranteed by the plaintiff of the non-party Kim Jong-hwan (the co-defendant of the court of first instance) on behalf of the defendant company on behalf of the defendant company, which does not fall within the scope of the business objectives of the defendant company, and did not fall within the scope of the defendant company's business purposes, and did not make a mistake in the judgment by keeping the rules of evidence with the rules of evidence. The court below did not agree with the purport that the court below recognized the fact that the defendant did not have an opportunity to object to the plaintiff (the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to object to the plaintiff), and that the defendant did not have any objection to the above point (the plaintiff did not submit any counter-proof). Even if the shareholder and the director of the defendant company decided to give the guarantee of this case, the "the defendant company has no legitimate effect of the guarantee," and the defendant company is liable to compensate for damages caused by tort or as the owner of the defendant company.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-hee (Presiding Justice)