1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the conjunctive claim added to the defendant C in the trial.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (b) between the 4th court's 18th to 5th court's 2th court's 2nd court's 18th court's 4th court's 4th court's 18th court's 4th court's 18th court's 5th court's 5th court's 5th court's 2th court's 3th court's 4th court's 4th court's

2. The part used after the completion (Articles 18 through 5) (section 2, 3) of the part (section 18 to 2 between the 4th 18th 18 and 5th 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance) stating that “The Plaintiff, after the completion of the certificate of No. 1 (the bond transfer and takeover contract of May 24, 2010), the Defendant B had the copy of No. 11 (the loan certificate of the Defendant C), the form is different, and the evidence No. 11 lacks the accurate date of preparation and the signature of Defendant C; ③ In particular, as shown in the certificate No. 11, the marks that seem to overlap with the upper part of the seal affixed with the Defendant B’s seal affixed on the paper, are similar to the upper part of the seal affixed with the Defendant’s certificate No. 1;

3. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “No. 11 (a loan certificate in the name of Defendant C) is not prepared by Defendant C, even if not, Defendant C delegated the preparation thereof to Defendant C, or that it constitutes an expression representation by an indication of granting the power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act or an expression representation beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act, and thus, is liable to the Plaintiff, a bona fide third party, as prescribed by the said Act.”

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant C delegated Defendant C with the authority to prepare documents, such as evidence No. 11, to Defendant B, and the Plaintiff submitted a reference document attached to Defendant B’s written confirmation, etc. after the closing of the party hearing, but the content thereof was July 7, 2015, stating specific facts.