1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant was a person who operated D dental services on the fourth floor of the building C in Yongsan-gu, the Defendant and the Defendant’s agent requested the Plaintiff to recover the shortage of dental funds and borrow KRW 100 million out of the dental operating funds. The Plaintiff trusted the Defendant to lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant by setting the due date as February 28, 2016.

B. However, the Defendant did not perform the above time limit, and concluded a transfer contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to transfer the dental license operated by the Defendant.

However, the defendant still failed to perform his/her obligation, and at present, the above D medical consumer cooperatives are providing medical services in the F medical consumer cooperatives, and there seems to be no intention to perform the above transfer or acquisition contract.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for nonperformance of the transfer contract of this case by failing to fulfill its obligation. Therefore, 10 million won and interest or delay damages from September 4, 2015 should be paid.

C. The Defendant committed a tort, such as violation of the Medical Service Act jointly with E, and the Defendant committed a tort, such as issuing a certificate of personal seal impression, lending a certificate of personal seal imprint, and lending his name, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff.

As such, the defendant shall also bear his responsibility.

2. Determination

A. The above

A. As to the assertion, there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the defendant's name, which is indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 (a written contract for transfer and takeover), is based on the defendant's seal, but in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that E affixes the defendant's seal on the defendant's name pursuant to the above transfer and takeover contract. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 alone have the right to affix the defendant's seal to E, and unless there is any other evidence to acknowledge it, the above evidence No. 1 may be used as evidence.