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

2. The plaintiff is a defendant D in this court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the premise facts is as follows: “Defendant C” is dismissed as “C”; “Evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 10” is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the first instance except for adding “Evidence No. 3, 7, and 10” to “Evidence No. 4, 15” column of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Issues of the instant case

A. Whether C has the power of representation to conclude a monetary loan contract or joint and several guarantee contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant B

B. (1) Whether there was any obligation to pay bills or checks by the Defendant Company, and whether there was any gross negligence or gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff as to whether the delivery of promissory notes or notes prepared by the Defendant Company and the per share per unit was defective

3. The judgment of this Court

A. C, on behalf of Defendant B, has the right of representation to conclude a monetary loan contract or joint and several surety contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant B (the Plaintiff’s assertion). The Plaintiff granted to Defendant B the right of representation to conclude a monetary loan contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant B, or to conclude a joint and several surety contract with the Plaintiff, and C, from August 13, 2009 to August 31, 2013, borrowed a total of KRW 670 million from the Plaintiff on the basis of legitimate right of representation, and concluded a monetary loan contract or joint and several surety contract with the Plaintiff as the agent of Defendant B as the joint borrower or joint and several surety, and the Defendant B, as a joint borrower or joint and several surety, is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 670 million of the borrowed amount

[C] Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B did not grant the wife the authority to enter into a monetary loan contract or a joint and several surety contract on behalf of Defendant B.

[Judgment] In full view of the whole purport of the oral argument as follows: (i) evidence Nos. 1-1, (except for the part in the forged name of Defendant B), evidence Nos. 5, 6, evidence No. 12-1, 2, and No. 3, 7, and 10)