2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s ratification of an unauthorized Representation: (a) even if C entered into the instant contract without A’s permission, the Plaintiff had the Defendant dealt with the insurance of the Defendant’s vehicle accident that occurred after February 28, 2013; and (b) from January 25, 2013, the same year.

3.1. By the end of January, 300, it asserts that C's act of unauthorized Representation was ratified as it had changed the coverage of the insurance contract.

On the other hand, ratification of unauthorized Representation is a single act with the knowledge of invalidation, etc. to vest the effect of such act in his/her own, and it may be done in an implied manner. Thus, it can be seen that ratification has been made implicitly in cases where there are circumstances to deem that the principal sufficiently understand the legal status faced by such act and that the result of such act belongs to himself/herself based on his/her truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8319, 83205, Feb. 10, 201). Thus, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the fact alleged by the Plaintiff alone alone is difficult to view that the Defendant expressed explicitly or explicitly his/her intent to bear all the obligation for insurance money, which is an effect of the act of unauthorized Representation by C, with the knowledge of the process of concluding the instant contract and the act of unauthorized Representation by C, and there is no other evidence to

B. In light of the purport of Articles 5(1) and 30(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the Plaintiff, as to the liability for compensation based on liability insurance, shall be entitled to the insurer’s compensation for automobile insurance within the minimum scope of the liability insurance amount in terms of protecting the victims of traffic accidents.