1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Esel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Esel”), and the non-party company received a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea, the new bank, and the Korean bank, and C jointly and severally guaranteed the non-party company’s liability for reimbursement against the Plaintiff under the said credit guarantee agreement.

B. After that, according to the credit guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 1,906,861,581 to each of the above lending banks in accordance with the credit guarantee agreement.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking reimbursement of KRW 1,91,404,781 (the substitute payment of KRW 1,906,861,581 as the substitute payment of KRW 4,543,200) and damages for delay against C as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da5148505, and was sentenced to the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on June 14, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 2, 2013.

On June 10, 2012, the Plaintiff, while tracking C’s property after the judgment became final and conclusive, secured a lease agreement (Evidence 3) with the content that C leases the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 503 (hereinafter “instant real property”) from the co-Defendant A of the first instance trial to June 15, 2013 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 350,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 15,000 from June 15, 2011 to June 15, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). 【The ground for recognition” does not have any dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff of the 1st party's assertion as to the primary cause of claim was that the defendant concluded the lease contract of this case in the name of A without the power of representation from A, and thus, the defendant, who is an unauthorized representative, bears the liability for damages under Article 135 (1) of the Civil Act against C. The defendant is liable to compensate for damages under the above claim for reimbursement against C.