1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion made a loan certificate to C, and the defendant granted the right of representation as to "legal act in which the defendant concludes a loan for consumption with an unspecified creditor".

Accordingly, C transferred the loan certificate received from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and C concluded a monetary loan contract with the Plaintiff as the representative of the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim, the remaining amount of debt under the above monetary loan contract.

2. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant granted C the power of representation to enter into the above monetary loan agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (C) and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant borrowed money from Eul on or around August 22, 2014, and "the loan certificate of this case" to Eul along with D is "the loan certificate of this case".

B. The facts that C prepared and executed a loan, and C thereafter borrowed approximately KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff to secure the repayment thereof, and C did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the loan was made to the Plaintiff and the circumstances leading up to the loan. Meanwhile, the Defendant prepared the above loan certificate and repaid all the loan borrowed from C to C; the Plaintiff filed a claim suit against the Defendant for KRW 40 million on July 29, 2016 and KRW 10 million on August 31, 2016, and KRW 20 million on or around August 31, 2016. In light of the above facts of recognition, the Defendant appears to have concluded a monetary loan agreement with C, not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s loan agreement with C to secure the repayment of the loan claim.