1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 37,731,970 and KRW 37,510,000 among the Plaintiff, from February 15, 2017 to March 9, 2017.

1. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned shall claim compensation to the defendant in accordance with the performance guarantee insurance contract.

As to this, the defendant lent all documents, such as resident registration certificates, certificates of seal imprint, etc. necessary for business registration to B and C, to the defendant's name.

It argues to the effect that the principal is well aware by bearing the debt.

2. Determination

(a) Where any digital signature, signature, or seal is required by other Acts and subordinate statutes to be signed, sealed, or affixed on a document or document, and where any digital signature has been affixed thereto, the digital signature concerned shall be deemed to have been satisfied if it is required by other Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 3(1)); where such digital signature has been affixed, the signature, seal, or signature and seal of the Signatory; where such digital signature has been affixed, it shall be presumed that the content thereof has not been altered after the digital signature has been affixed (Article 3(2)); and where other Acts and subordinate statutes do not restrict or exclude the verification of the principal by using the authorized certificate, the identity may

(Article 18bis) shall be prescribed.

Therefore, a juristic act by digital signature of an authorized certificate is presumed to be by the intention of the nominal owner of the authorized certificate.

On September 7, 2016, A’s certificate (insurance Contract for Performance Guarantee) was concluded by means of digital signature using the Defendant’s authorized certificate.

Pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Digital Signature Act and Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, the performance guarantee insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is presumed to have been signed by the defendant, and the authenticity of the whole document

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the above contract was written against the defendant's will.

B. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the facts constituting the cause of the claim as shown in the attached sheet can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's compensation amounting to KRW 37,731,970 and KRW 37,510,000 among them shall be the basic date.