1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Basic facts

A. E is the chairperson of the so-called F Group that substantially controls Defendant (hereinafter from D to November 4, 2012, changed its trade name to C) and Company G, etc., and the co-defendant B of the first instance court is the vice-chairperson of the F Group.

B. The Plaintiff invested KRW 2 billion in G on March 5, 2010 and KRW 1 billion on April 22, 2010, and returned part of the investment as of February 15, 2012, and was KRW 3,50,000,000. On February 16, 2012, E succeeded to “E’s investment in G” as “loan to Plaintiff’s Party E,” and on February 16, 2012, E succeeded to the Plaintiff’s “E’s investment in G,” and paid the Plaintiff the said KRW 3,350,000 to the Plaintiff by installments until September 30, 2012. The Plaintiff paid interest at the rate of KRW 1.5% per month from March 31, 2012 to the end of each month (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate,” and the Defendant’s debt amount at the time of the instant loan”).

(hereinafter “this case’s joint and several sureties”). 【No dispute exists concerning the grounds for recognition, entry of evidence A Nos. 1 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the co-defendant B agreed with the court of first instance to pay 3.5 million won to the Plaintiff with the loan debt of this case, and as the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed this, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with the co-defendant B of the court of first instance to pay the Plaintiff the loan debt of this case 3.5 million won and damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of abuse of representative authority

A. The joint and several sureties agreement in this case, which was concluded by abusing the power of representation for the benefit of the E individual without the resolution of the board of directors, is null and void since the Plaintiff knew or could have known of such agreement.

B. The scope of the representative director’s power of representation.