1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Company is the clothing company that manufactures and sells women’s clothes bearing the trademark “B” and has a store in the department store in accordance with the sales contract with the department store, and has the shop master who entered into an interim management transaction contract with the Defendant Company operate the store during the contract period.

B. C is a shop master who manages and operates “B” stores located in D from October 18, 2010 to November 12, 2012 according to the interim management contract with the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff is a mother of C.

C. Around October 9, 2012, the Defendant Company conducted inventory inspections on “D” operated by C (hereinafter “the first inventory inspection”), and around November 12, 2012, the Defendant Company conducted inventory inspections for a new master and underwriter (hereinafter “the second inventory inspection”) at the time of termination of the interim management contract with the Defendant Company.

On October 30, 2012, the Defendant Company suffered a total of 83,518,898 won (= KRW 24,166,34,09 on the first stock investigation, KRW 24,166,342 on the second stock investigation, KRW 40,818,457 on the second stock investigation) as a result of the first and second stock listing investigation and the second stock distribution settlement on October 30, 2012, and among them, KRW 5,00,000 on the sales deposit paid by C and KRW 65,974,832 on the remaining amount after deducting the sales fee paid by C from September 11, 2012. On November 1, 2012, the Defendant Company sought C to be a new place of work with C as a debtor, E, and the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety.

E. Since then, on April 2013, the Defendant Company received a decision of provisional seizure of real estate against the apartment owned by the Plaintiff as Seoul East Eastern District Court 2013Kadan3427 on the ground of the nonperformance of the foregoing obligation, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 63,974,872 to the Defendant Company on May 13, 2013, thereby completing the payment of all the amounts under the foregoing obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, 10 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

(a)a party’s assertion 1.