1. Each appeal against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Company B.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court should explain, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. In the first instance, the Defendants added an assertion of representation in accordance with Article 126 of the Civil Code in regard to the claim of joint and several liability, which is the main cause of judgment as to the primary claim among the Defendants’ counterclaim claims, and Defendant D added ratification of the act of unauthorized representation.

In other words, H forged the joint and several guarantee contract under the name of the plaintiff.

Even if Article 126 of the Civil Code is applied mutatis mutandis, and since the plaintiff ratified the joint and several guarantee contract concluded by H, the plaintiff is liable for the joint and several guarantee liability to the defendants.

Article 126 of the Civil Act is established in cases where a representative expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal or performs an act other than his/her authority with his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal. In cases where a representative expresses or expresses his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal and expresses his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal, but instead, in cases where a representative acted on behalf of the principal by deceiving himself/herself as if he/she was the principal by using his/her name as if he/she was the principal, barring special circumstances, the representation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49814 Decided June 28, 2002, and 201Da49814). The health care unit back to the instant case and the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone are insufficient to recognize that there was a basic right of attorney to represent the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendants by deceiving the Defendants as if they were the Plaintiff. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, there is no evidence that the plaintiff ratified the joint and several guarantee contract concluded by H as above.