1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,189,907 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 19, 2017 to September 26, 2017.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff subcontracted the installation of PC boxes and retaining wall construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) from February 25, 2013 to June 30, 2014, with the construction period fixed as KRW 4,432,483,00, among B development projects (civil engineering works) ordered by the Go Chang-gun Office (hereinafter “Visung Construction”).

On February 10, 2014, an oil supply contract was entered into with C (hereinafter “instant contract”) with C for the instant construction work.

At the time of the instant contract, the contract written by the Plaintiff is written as joint and several sureties and the Plaintiff’s employee seal is affixed next thereto, which is written and sealed by the Defendant, who was the head of the site office of the said construction.

(hereinafter “Joint and Several sureties” (hereinafter “instant joint and several sureties”). C supplied oil to a volatile construction in accordance with the instant contract, but the volatiles construction did not pay KRW 30,259,240 in total, the oil price supplied around June 2014 and KRW 6,248,710 in total, and KRW 36,50 in total, the oil price supplied around July 2014.

C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the volatile Construction in the Jeonju District Court’s Jeonju Branch Branch Support (2015dan395). On May 17, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment that “A’s claim against the volatile Construction shall be accepted, but the claim against the Plaintiff shall be dismissed,” on the ground that the Defendant was found to have performed the joint and several surety act in the instant case without the consent of the Plaintiff’s representative.”

On this issue, C appealed.

(B) On June 22, 2017, the Jeonju District Court held that on June 22, 2017, the act of joint and several surety guaranteed by the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff without the consent of the Plaintiff’s representative constitutes a forgery and use of documents. This constitutes a forgery and use of documents. As such, it can be seen that the act of joint and several surety by the Defendant constitutes a forgery and use of documents. As the Defendant’s tort, the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s employer, and is equivalent to 60