1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from the intervention by the Plaintiff is the Intervenor joining the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. B, who is the Defendant’s representative, entered into an entrustment contract for management and operation of D’s “D” located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) on December 31, 2007. On December 31, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”) with the insured Intervenor, the purchase amount of insurance amount of KRW 35 million, the insurance amount of KRW 35 million, and the insurance period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”).

B. Around July 5, 2010, the Intervenor claimed insurance money under the instant guarantee insurance contract on the ground that an insured incident for which the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the user fee under the instant consignment contract occurred, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the Intervenor on August 19, 2010.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 4, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant entrustment contract and guarantee insurance contract are valid contracts that were concluded with the authority to conclude the contract delegated by the Defendant’s representative E. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff indemnity amounting to KRW 37,441,369 (i.e., KRW 35 million for delay from August 20, 2010 to December 31, 2010) and delay damages amounting to KRW 35 million for subrogation.

B. Defendant B without authority entered into the instant entrustment contract and guarantee insurance contract in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant does not bear any liability against the Plaintiff under the instant guarantee insurance contract.

3. As to the fact that judgment B was delegated by the Defendant’s representative E to conclude the instant consignment contract and the guaranteed insurance contract, the following circumstances recognized by the record are revealed.