1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a company that is established on November 8, 2012 and operates food trade business, etc., and D and E are those who actually operated F. (hereinafter referred to as “F,” and those who are also engaged in other companies. The Defendants are those who have worked as a production worker of F.

On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff: D; E; and F, which represented F, borrowed money from the Plaintiff at a rate of 15% per annum; and D; E; E; and the Defendants prepared a contract for transaction and security (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant contract”) stating that the said obligation shall be jointly and severally guaranteed; and obtained the Defendants’ personal seal impression and resident registration card from D and E.

From June 27, 2014 to December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 331,00,000 to an account under F or D’s name two times.

E argues that “G had received the seal impression of D, E, and Defendants from E at will, around June 2014, the instant contract was voluntarily prepared,” and the Plaintiff’s representative director G was accused of forging private documents, etc. with punishment No. 21517 of the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors’ Office 2016, Seoul Dong District Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office”), but the prosecutor of the above Prosecutor’s Office decided on October 28, 2016 that there was no suspicion on the ground that there was insufficient evidence against G.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Eul evidence 8, and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings is to determine the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff granted Eul the authority to conclude a joint and several guarantee contract on behalf of the defendants beyond the scope of the above authority. Eul concluded a joint and several guarantee contract on behalf of the defendants beyond the scope of the above authority, and in the process, Eul reported the above certificate of the personal seal impression and the copy of the resident registration to the plaintiff, and it is safe for defendant B, I representative director, defendant C, and B." In addition, the plaintiff believed that Eul has the authority to conclude a joint and several guarantee contract on behalf of the defendants.