1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

C On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff leased from the Plaintiff the amount of monthly rent of KRW 2,700,000, value-added tax of KRW 270,000 from Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and KRW 243.61 square meters.

(hereinafter “instant lease”). C transferred the said building to the Plaintiff on August 29, 2015.

C The unpaid rent, electricity, and gas charges up to time are 17,573,360 won in total.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, argument of the purport of the entire pleadings, and joint and several sureties's liability for determination of joint and several sureties's debt relating to the lease of this case directly or on behalf of the defendant, the defendant sought payment of the above KRW 17,573,360 and damages for delay against the defendant jointly and severally with C.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, directly or upon delegation by the Defendant, prepared the parts written in the name of the Defendant in the evidence Nos. 4-2 through 7, 5-1, and 2 by only the descriptions of the evidence No. 4-2 through 7, 5-1, and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, it shall not be admitted as evidence.

In addition, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant directly displayed the intent to stand a joint and several surety to the Plaintiff or granted C the right to stand a joint and several surety on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserts that, on behalf of the Defendant, C has a justifiable reason to believe that it has the right to express the intent of joint and several sureties, the Defendant has the responsibility to act on behalf of the Defendant as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

The expression agent is premised on the existence of any basic power of representation, and C does not have any assertion or proof as to the existence of the basic power of representation of the defendant.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff is the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2014J37230 against the defendant and C.