1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From August 8, 2013 to November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 1.65 billion to the Defendant’s husband C (Marriage on September 19, 2012, divorce on February 9, 2017), and received reimbursement of KRW 500 million among them.

B. On October 26, 2015, C: (a) signed a joint contract with the Defendant stating that “the Defendant shall jointly take over the obligation of C to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1.650 million - 50 million - 500 million),” under the Defendant’s name, “A shall jointly take over the obligation of the Plaintiff (i.e., the instant contract; hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).” and (b) gave the Plaintiff the agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since Plaintiff C obtained the power of representation from the Defendant and entered into the instant contract lawfully and effectively, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 150 million and the interest or delay damages therefrom according to the instant contract.

B. The defendant did not have the right to represent the conclusion of the contract of this case to the defendant C, and thus the plaintiff's claim is improper.

3. Determination

A. C’s seal impression affixed to the Defendant’s seal imprint kept at the time of the instant contract; and thereafter C’s following fact that the Defendant’s seal imprint issued on November 3, 2015 on behalf of the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties.

In addition, the defendant consented to the registration of C at the request of C as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (formerly: E or F Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “instant company”) which C substantially operates, and recognized that C left the identification card and the seal impression.

However, the above facts alone are difficult to recognize that the defendant has given C the power to represent the conclusion of the contract of this case, and some of the testimony of the witness C to the effect that the defendant has given C a comprehensive power of representation, including the power to represent the conclusion of the contract of this case, is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In this part, the plaintiff.