1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as follows: “Defendant B’s co-defendant B, “Defendant D” is identical to the part of “1. Recognition” in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “Defendant D” and “Defendant E” are deemed to be “Co-Defendant D of the court of first instance” and “Co-Defendant E,” and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant issued to the Plaintiff, via G apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) a sales contract form with respect to Nos. 806 and 906, the sales contract form (hereinafter “instant sales contract form”) with respect to G apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) within the meaning of a joint and several surety of the debt borrowed by Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 100,000,000 won and interest thereon, jointly and severally with the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

B. Even if he did not have the right to represent joint and several sureties B of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff is liable for the act of the Defendant, who is the representative director, since there is a justifiable reason to believe that B had the right to represent the Defendant as the actual owner of the Defendant.

(The plaintiff pointed out the responsibility of expression representative under Article 126 of the Civil Act as the basis of the above liability, but it is interpreted to the effect that the defendant asserts the responsibility of expression representative under Article 395 of the Commercial Act when compiling the plaintiff's assertion, and the defendant also contests the nature of the responsibility of expression representative under Article 395 of the Commercial Act.

Even if the Defendant did not deliver the instant sales contract with the intent of joint and several sureties, it constitutes a real guarantee contract since the first instance co-defendant B issued the instant sales contract as a security for borrowing money from the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant damaged the security by transferring the ownership of apartment house offered as security to Korea Trust Co., Ltd. on May 12, 2015, the Defendant is liable for damage to the security.

(b).