1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an electricity use agreement with Nonparty B and supplied electricity to B.

B. The unpaid electric charges from January 201 to April 2012 by B are KRW 130,335,520.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 through 4 (if there is a satisfy number, including a branch number)

hereinafter the same shall apply.

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. Determination as to the claim

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant set the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt with respect to subordinate obligations, such as unpaid electricity charges and value added tax, against the plaintiff and Eul (hereinafter "the joint and several guarantee contract") at KRW 102,00,000, is the joint and several guarantee contract of this case

As the Defendant concluded a contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 102,00,000, which is the highest amount of the electricity charge of KRW 130,335,520, which was not paid by B to the Plaintiff. 2) Defendant C, who is the Defendant’s birth, stated the Defendant’s name and signed, and the Defendant did not have concluded the contract for joint and several guarantee.

B. Although there are evidence to acknowledge the joint and several surety contract of this case, there are 1 and 2 evidence No. 1-2, the witness D merely obtained a resident registration certificate from E and recorded the defendant's personal information in the business information system as an employee belonging to E, who is a person in charge of the contract for the joint and several surety of this case at the time of the time, and D is presumed not to be a person in charge of the contract for the joint and several surety of this case, and D also did not confirm the identity of D's person who entered into the contract for the joint and several surety of this case directly under the provisions of the contract for the joint and several surety of this case and did not confirm the identity of D's person who entered the contract for the joint and several surety of this case in the plaintiff's Kim Jong-si office, and prepared a joint and several surety (Evidence No. 1-1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of this case)

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable.