1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff regarding the defendant who is ordered to pay below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff Company submitted an application for automobile financial instruments and an automobile lease agreement (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant contract”) in the name of the Defendant Company for the automobile lease (vehicle number and model) in the name of the Defendant Company (vehicle number and model):

In the application, the name of representative E was stated as the representative of the defendant company, and the agreement submitted together was submitted by the co-defendant C of the first instance court, who is a director of the defendant company and a major shareholder holding 50% of the shares of the defendant company.

In addition, at each bottom of the contract of this case, the name of the defendant company was stated as the acceptance of the name, and the seal impression of the defendant company was affixed to each other, and there was a copy of the company's register and its business registration certificate, including the seal impression of the defendant company, and a copy of the passbook was attached.

B. On May 20, 2016, employees of the Plaintiff Company made telephone conversations with the said C.

C The defendant company filed an application for automobile leasing with the employee of the plaintiff company, and stated that the defendant company had the intent to jointly and severally guarantee the obligations of the plaintiff company related to the automobile leasing.

C. After the above telephone conversations took place, F, who carried out the business related to the Defendant Company, took over the above D NNS vehicle on May 20, 2016, and around that time, the Defendant Company subscribed to the insurance on the said vehicle with a special agreement with limited employees.

When the payment of rent for the above vehicle was delayed two times or more, the Plaintiff Company received the return of the above vehicle on March 20, 2017 and terminated the automobile lease agreement.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company’s damage is KRW 17,635,308, such as the “statement of calculation” as of June 8, 2017.

E. On May 12, 2017, the representative E of the Defendant Company affixed the seal impression of the Defendant Company to the Financial Supervisory Service on the instant contract, but it is the representative director of the Defendant Company.