1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

On July 2016, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim concerning the cause of the claim is that the plaintiff is the actual president of C and the plaintiff is the joint and several surety, and requested the plaintiff to supply the oil to C.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff supplied the oil to C, the Plaintiff did not receive the total sum of KRW 60 million for April, 2017, 8, 9, and 12 months, and January 2018.

Therefore, as a joint and several surety, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above KRW 60,000,000 and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

Judgment

As to whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for oil to the Plaintiff, each of the items stated in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, which appears to correspond thereto, is difficult to believe as it is, because there is no other objective evidence supporting the above contents, or there is no other objective evidence from the F, the representative director of the Plaintiff.

The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 8 alone are not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of joint and several sureties for the same reasons, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On September 29, 2017, C entered into a trade agreement with D (Evidence A 4) with D, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C’s obligations under the same trade agreement.

However, the time of the preparation of the above contract for the same kind of business has passed one year after the date on which the oil supply of this case began, and the text of the contract cannot be deemed to include the oil payment obligation against the plaintiff, not the parties to the contract, in the scope of joint and several sureties.

② Even if the Defendant assumed office as the representative director of C on February 14, 2018 and used the office that is the president of C even before that appointment, the Defendant did not prepare a disposal document stating that the Defendant is a joint and several surety for a corporation’s transaction obligation as an individual.

If so, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.