1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff and the defendant corporation B shall be changed as follows:

Defendant.

Basic Facts

This part of the court's reasoning is the same as the part of "1. Basic Facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the court's reasoning is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants did not work properly due to any defect in both the first and second pumps installed and supplied by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff rescinded the first and second contracts on the ground of this.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to refund to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 18.8 million and delay damages therefor, and the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the Defendants the purchase price of the second contract.

At the time of the first contract, the Plaintiff issued one copy of the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression for the purpose of proving the conclusion of the first contract at the request of the Defendants. The Defendants prepared the instant notarial deed concerning the purchase price of the second pumps without permission by using the said certificate of personal seal impression. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

The Defendants’ notarial deeds were lawfully prepared according to the Plaintiff’s delegation, and there are no defects in the first and second pumps.

Defendant C is not a party to the first contract, and it is not obligated to return the price of KRW 18.8 million to the Plaintiff under the first contract.

Judgment

As to the validity of the notarial deed of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely with the entries of health account, Gap evidence No. 3, and some entries of Gap evidence No. 5 as to whether the notarial deed of this case was prepared without the plaintiff's delegation, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, the instant Nos. 1, 4, and 1 and 5’s written evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, the instant No. 1 and 5’s written evidence is deemed to have been lawfully prepared by the Plaintiff’s comprehensive delegation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’