선수예치금반환
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is to be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the court of first instance alters the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) and adds the judgment of the plaintiff's argument in the court of
Change of the part No. 6 [Attachment 2] of the “Director of the Customer” column for the “Director of the Defendant’s Customer” is changed from “2,479,00,000 won” to “2,524,319,847 won” to “2,524,319,847 won.”
Part 8: (a) changing the Defendant’s prior payment transaction practices into the Defendant’s prior payment of the transaction amount; and (b) deleting the “social norms”.
The following shall be added to the first page of paragraph 9:
Although the Defendant alleged that B was removed from office on August 23, 2013 by the Head of the Business Headquarters to the effect that the power of representation regarding the purchase and sale of imported land was restricted, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the entries in Section 10, 26, and 27 and witness C’s testimony in the first instance trial alone, is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s submission. Even if the right of representation regarding the purchase and sale of imported land was restricted due to the removal from office on August 23, 2013, as seen earlier, B constitutes a trade employee (Article 15 of the Commercial Act) delegated by the Defendant with the comprehensive power of representation regarding the imported land transaction between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the restriction on the comprehensive power of representation of the trade employee cannot be asserted against the third party acting in good faith (Articles 15(2) and 11(3) of the Commercial Act), and the burden of asserting and proving the bad faith or gross negligence by the third party on the part of the proprietor of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 196Da1636566, supra).