1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. Defendant C is the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant C.

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”)’s assertion by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party”) is the business owner who is a cafeteria at the construction site of the F apartment (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”), and Defendant C is the actual representative director of Defendant B, and is the actual operator of the instant cafeteria.

The plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") believe that the guarantee agreement on the investment principal of the defendant C was made from April 2010 to July 2010, and invested a total of KRW 70,000,000 in the business of operating the Hab restaurant of this case from April 2010 to July 8, 2010, and the defendant C written a letter of payment stating that "the plaintiff et al. will pay KRW 70,000,000 of the investment principal of the Hab restaurant and its profits" to the plaintiff et al. on May 8, 2012.

On the other hand, Defendant C is the representative director of Defendant B and received investment money from the Plaintiff, etc., and Defendant B is allowed to use the name of the representative director of Defendant C explicitly or implicitly. As such, Defendant B is liable for the act of Defendant C, who is the representative director of expression under Article 395 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return the investment principal of KRW 70,000,000 to the plaintiff, etc. according to the terms set forth in the above payment note.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant B, the letter of payment in this case contains only the name and signature of Defendant C, and the official seal or seal imprint is not affixed. It is reasonable to deem that the letter of payment in this case was written individually by Defendant C to the Plaintiff, etc., and there is no evidence to support that Defendant C prepared the letter of payment in this case on behalf of the Defendant B.

Therefore, the above claim against the defendant B by the plaintiff et al. on the premise that the defendant C prepared the letter of payment in this case on behalf of the defendant B is without merit.

B. The Civil Procedure Act determines the claim against Defendant C.