1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6:

The defendant lent the name of the business operator of the company that he establishes to B upon the request of Dong Chang-gu, a middle school creator B, but the defendant was the representative of the defendant and the "C" company was incorporated.

B. Meanwhile, in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s trade name was changed as of March 20, 2014) of the lessee-user Co., Ltd, the Plaintiff of the facility leasing company (the Plaintiff’s trade name was changed as of March 20, 201), the acquisition cost was 64,52,060 won, 36 months from the date the certificate of receipt of the leased object was issued, the overdue interest rate was 25% per annum, and the automobile lease contract entered into on March 10, 2008.

C. The instant lease agreement was terminated on March 10, 201, and the obligation of the lessee under the instant lease agreement as of December 9, 2013 is KRW 40,056,245, and KRW 412,760, such as overdue lease charges, penalty/automobile taxes, and KRW 34,019,68,691, in total.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement for the lessee’s obligation under the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “joint and several guarantee agreement”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from December 10, 2013 to December 10, 2013, for the amount of KRW 74,48,691 in total, including overdue lease fees under the instant lease agreement, and for the amount of KRW 40,056,245 in arrears lease fees.

Even if the Defendant did not directly conclude the instant joint and several guarantee contract

Even if B entered into a joint and several guarantee contract of this case beyond the scope of the right of representation granted by the defendant as the representative of the defendant or the defendant, the defendant is legitimate.