1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 16, 2017 and March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a financial investment advisory contract (management) with C as the contract period from March 16, 2017 to March 16, 2018, and C paid KRW 50,000,000 to C as the investment amount, and made an investment by C, and made an investment by managing it, and the Plaintiff agreed that 3-6% of the accrued profit and the remainder shall be the consulting fee.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff invested KRW 50,00,00 in cash to C, and KRW 49,70,000 by account transfer to C’s spouse D, and KRW 50,00,000. Upon the expiration of the investment period, C decided to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff.

C obtained the consent of the defendant E, a representative director of the defendant, and agreed to prepare a joint and several surety certificate under the defendant's name, and on March 21, 2017, C prepared the evidence No. 2 (joint and several surety certificate; hereinafter "joint and several surety certificate of this case") in the form where the defendant's representative director E is located.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to return 50,000,000 won as a joint and several surety of C.

Even if it was not authorized to C, the plaintiff believed that C had the authority, and the defendant is liable to the plaintiff as a joint guarantor under Article 395 of the Commercial Act.

B. The defendant's argument that he voluntarily created the defendant's seal and affixed the defendant's seal on the joint and several guarantee letter of this case, and the defendant did not have any joint and several guarantee.

C. Determination 1) According to the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the fact that Eul was registered as a director of the defendant's in-house on January 18, 2016 that Eul was appointed as the defendant's in-house director on January 18, 2016 is deemed to be the same as Gap evidence Nos. 9 (real estate sales contract). The fact that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the contents of the real estate sales contract can be acknowledged.

However, entry of Nos. 4 and 4.