1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2015, Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) entered into a “D Agreement” with the Jeju Agricultural Cooperative Co-Defendant A with the contract amount of KRW 2,450,00,000.

(hereinafter “D Contract”). (b)

On March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a bid contract with A within the limit of KRW 228,00,000,000, and the period of the deduction that guarantees the obligation of A related to advance payment was from March 9, 2015 to March 8, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant Guarantee Agreement”). C.

The co-defendant C of the first instance trial stated the name and resident registration number of himself and the defendant in the joint and several sureties jointly performing the obligations A of the instant guarantee agreement, and affixed his and the seal of the defendant on each name.

On March 12, 2015, pursuant to the instant guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff issued an advance payment guarantee mutual aid instrument from March 11, 2015 to November 20, 2015, with the insured’s Jeju Citrus Agricultural Cooperatives, the insured amount of KRW 93,609,123, and the period of mutual aid.

E. D contract was terminated upon the waiver of construction works related to D contract on July 20, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 91,278,986 to Jeju Agricultural Cooperative in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advance payment guarantee mutual aid agreement.

F. Meanwhile, the rate of delay damages under the instant guarantee agreement is 5% per annum from the date following the date of payment of mutual aid money until 30 days, 8% per annum from the following day to the 90th day, and 15% per annum from the following day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s joint and several guarantee of the Defendant’s obligation under the instant guarantee agreement for the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded by C with which the right of representation was lawfully granted by the Defendant. Even if there was no right of representation for the household C, the Defendant’s external appearance as granting the right of representation for the joint and several guarantee exists. Thus, the expression representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act is established.

Therefore, the defendant.