1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 16, 2016, the representative C of the Company B (hereinafter “B”) entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant’s Intervenor regarding K7 vehicles (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The instant lease agreement entered into between B and the Plaintiff as a joint lessee.

B. On January 29, 2016, around January 29, 2016, in the name of B and the Plaintiff, a guarantee insurance contract (payment) was concluded (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”) with the Defendant that provides the purchase price of KRW 6,970,00 (amended by KRW 6,842,00, Feb. 16, 2016) to guarantee the payment of rent and penalty for breach of contract under the instant lease agreement. On January 29, 2016, the essential consent for the conclusion, implementation, etc. of the instant guarantee insurance contract is a digital signature using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate.

C. The Defendant’s Intervenor claimed insurance money to the Defendant under the instant guarantee insurance contract, and on October 31, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 6,842,00 as insurance money to the Defendant’s Intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not delegate C with the contract of this case and the guarantee insurance contract of this case, and C signed with the USB containing the plaintiff's authorized certificate since each contract is null and void. Therefore, there is no debt under the guarantee insurance contract of this case against the defendant.

B. (1) Determination (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) Article 7(2)2 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) where the received electronic document was sent by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent by virtue of the relationship with the originator or his/her agent.