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

A. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement for automobile purchase funds (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant by setting the principal amount of KRW 32 million, 48 months, and interest rate of KRW 8.9% per annum, and agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum in addition to the damages for delay calculated by the Defendant when the Defendant loses the benefit of time. The Defendant lost the benefit of time due to delay in the repayment of principal and interest. The Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from February 26, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the date on which the Defendant lost the benefit of time.

B. However, on May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant loan contract with the Defendant, who received the power of representation from the Defendant. If the Plaintiff did not have the authority to enter into the said loan contract on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant is liable for B’s act in accordance with the doctrine of expression representation by the indication of power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act or the doctrine of expression representation beyond the authority of Article 126 of the Civil Act, or the validity of the said loan contract by the ratification of the act of unauthorized representation,

C. The Defendant is liable to name the name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act for the conclusion of the instant loan contract between the Plaintiff and B.

2. Determination:

A. Whether the loan contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, No. 1 (application for loan) cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to prove that the loan contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit without further review.

B. The Plaintiff represented the Defendant in full view of whether B was authorized to conclude the instant loan contract on behalf of the Defendant, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence No. 10.