1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 2016, the Plaintiff asserted as to Defendant B entered into a contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on the supply of goods with the content that the Plaintiff supplies V materials to D in relation to the production of shipbuilding machinery and equipment, and equipment, etc. that D subcontracted by Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), and supplied goods equivalent to KRW 22,548,218 from February 2016 to November 201 of the same year.

Since E accepts D and changed its trade name to Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the price of the above goods to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay.

B. 1) Defendant C, who is an employee of Defendant C, requested the Plaintiff to supply goods to the Plaintiff on the part of Defendant B, as an employee of F and G, as an agent, and provided a verbal and joint guarantee with the price for the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff by D. Accordingly, Defendant C, as a joint guarantor or joint owner, is liable to pay the said goods to the Plaintiff as a joint owner. 2) Even if the F was not an employee of Defendant C, Defendant C granted F the overall right to work regarding the conclusion of the instant goods supply contract, and allowed F to perform the work by using the office of the director of Defendant C.

F has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of D under the instant goods supply contract to the Plaintiff within the scope of the right of representation indicated as above.

Therefore, Defendant C is obliged to perform the obligation of joint and several sureties to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression by representation by presentation as prescribed in Article 125 of the Civil Act

3. Furthermore, even if F and G are not the employees of Defendant C, and even if there is no authority granted by Defendant C to engage in the instant goods supply contract, Defendant C allowed F and G to engage in business activities using the trade name of Defendant C. As such, Defendant C is in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.