1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the written judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

2. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the dismissal was adopted, “A resolution was made.” The resolution was made, “H” of the 17th sentence, “D”.

On the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, the "compensation for the contract with the delegation of this case" is added to "(66,00,000 won for services for security management x 3 months)".

Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "J" in Part 3 shall be deemed D, and the "H" in Part 20 shall be deemed "D."

On the 6th written judgment of the first instance court, the part of the plaintiff's claim against the primary defendant is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the primary defendant is dismissed as "this part of the plaintiff's claim is without merit." The subsequent part of the judgment of the first instance is changed and the following is added.

In addition, even if the representative authority of the conjunctive defendant is assumed to be terminated retroactively according to the above judgment, the conjunctive defendant concluded a delegation contract using the name of the administrator, who is the representative of the primary defendant, and thus, the legal doctrine of the representative director under Article 395 of the Commercial Act is analogically applied to the primary defendant. It is difficult to find any ground to deem that the provision of the representative director under Article 395 of the Commercial Act to the primary defendant, who is not the corporation, is analogically applied to the primary defendant. Even if the provision of the representative director is analogically applied, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was unaware or was grossly negligent at the time of the instant delegation contract. This part of the plaintiff's claim against the primary defendant is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the primary defendant is without merit.