1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff and C prepared a notarial deed with the commission of preparation of a notarial deed to a law firm, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 60 million to C. On September 26, 2014, the notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement was made with the Plaintiff, and on September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff signed a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff setting the amount of KRW 60 million (57.6 million, subtracting a prior interest of KRW 2.4 million; hereinafter “instant loan” or “the instant loan”) as interest rate at 4% per month (hereinafter “instant contract”). The said contract contains the Defendant’s name in the column of joint and several sureties for the Defendant’s joint and several sureties to the effect that the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the above loan obligations against D, and the Defendant’s seal affixed thereon.

B. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50,210,00 to the account in the name of E, the mother of C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion (1) since the defendant granted C the right of representation to conclude a joint and several surety contract for the loan of this case, the defendant, a joint and several surety, is liable to repay the loan of this case.

② Even if family C did not have the power of representation to conclude the above joint and several liability contract, C had the power of representation for the management of the building owned by the Defendant, and as the Plaintiff, C believed that it was the authority to conclude the joint and several liability contract on behalf of the Defendant, and on the ground that there exists any justifiable reason, the expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established.

③ Even if C entered into a joint and several guarantee contract for the borrowed money, the Defendant impliedly ratified it.

④ Finally, given that the instant loan was used in the repayment of the deposit and the construction cost of the H building owned by the Defendant’s F building or the Defendant’s joint ownership with G, the said loan was used, and thus, returned to the Plaintiff in unjust enrichment.