1. Defendant C’s KRW 35,292,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 28, 2017 to April 12, 2017, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff drafted a contract agreement with Defendant C on the production and installation of compressed machines (hereinafter “instant contract”). The contractor for the said contract is indicated by Defendant B, and Defendant C affixed Defendant B’s seal.

B. The Plaintiff’s account (Serial number: E; hereinafter “instant account”); and KRW 20,00,000 on January 24, 2017; and the same year.

2.2. 5,292,00 won, the sum of KRW 10,00,000 on the 24th day of the same month, and KRW 35,292,00 on the deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (which include serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant B bears the responsibility of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act even if the defendant C grants the right of representation regarding the conclusion of the contract of this case to the defendant C or the right of representation is not granted.

(3) The title holder, who has permitted the business using his name or trade name, asserts that he is contractually responsible under the instant contract.

In addition, Defendant B asserts that he is the joint tortfeasor who participated in the act of defraudation by Defendant C by lending the name of the business operator and the passbook to Defendant C, and is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

B. 1) Determination as to contractual liability (A) Determination as to the instant contract’s contractual liability: (a) the following were examined: (b) the assertion as to the right representative or the expression representative; (c) the statement as to the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 9; and (d) the inquiry reply as to the fact-finding as to the Co., Ltd. of this Court

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a fundamental right of representation granted by Defendant C or granted by Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion regarding representation and representation need to be examined further.