1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant C is KRW 146,575,000 for the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D, a director of the Plaintiff, did not deposit KRW 146,575,00,00 that the Plaintiff would deposit to the Plaintiff among the “Advance payment made in advance by the Plaintiff to the travel company in 2014 for aviation fees or hotel reservations.”

B. At that time, Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) conducting travel business, etc., proposed that D would make a full payment in lieu of advance payment to the Plaintiff, if he/she is the same as the travel business related to Han P by using the Plaintiff’s ability, and upon the introduction of D, Defendant C prepared a letter of non-performance of guarantee (Evidence A 2) as indicated in the attached Form, and delivered it to the Plaintiff via D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2, Witness D, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. As Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant B’s assertion, agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 146,575,00 to the Plaintiff, Defendant B is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. Therefore, according to the reasoning of the judgment, in light of the fact that the payer did not affix the name or official seal of the company after the issuance of the attached letter of non-performance of guarantee (Evidence A 2), it is difficult to view that Defendant C prepared on behalf of the company as the representative director of Defendant B, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on the premise that Defendant B is a name of preparation is without merit.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant C for the payment of money based on the letter of non-performance of the guarantee obligation, and barring any special circumstance, Defendant C, as to the existence and scope of the said Defendant’s obligation from January 16, 2015 to April 28, 2016, is the year prescribed in the Civil Act, which is, the date of this decision, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute the Plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation.