The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the successor of the plaintiff corporation A.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the establishment of the liability for expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, the lower court, based on the evidence of employment, agreed upon the Defendant’s ground of appeal as to the establishment of the liability for expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, that the Defendant’s management of the H office, which is the place of business to which the Defendant belongs, by entrusting F with the office of director of H office, which is the place of business to which the Defendant belongs, and that F, among the Defendant’s organization-for-profit businesses from December 21, 2007 to December 20, 208, the Defendant’s management of the non-refusable goods, such as scrap iron, etc., of the Korea Railroad Corporation

(2) The Defendant’s H Office Company A (hereinafter “A”) in the name of the head of the Defendant’s H Office (“Plaintiff”) in the name of the head of the Defendant’s H Office, who jointly uses the office and operated the H Office, and the N, an employee of the Nonparty Company, was an employee of the H Office, using the name of the Defendant’s H Office from around June 2008 to the name of the employee of the

A) In order to sell the closed voltage of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, A had A deposit KRW 100 million in the name of a bank account in the name of the Defendant established by the H business office. After that, A prepared a sales contract with N to sell the main voltage of the Korea Electric Power Corporation in total of KRW 750,00,00KA (excluding value-added tax) KRW 900,000,000 (unit price of KRW 4,400/KVA). N puts the employee seal of H business office in the seller column of the above contract. After recognizing that N puts the employee seal of H business office in accordance with Article 126 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is liable for the expressive representation of the said act by N pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act.

As to the claim, N did not receive benefits from H office, and there is no evidence to deem that H office was directly involved in the operation of H office or the work related to the closed pressure-free business, such as the document sent outside by H office, and the document sent outside by H office is not indicated, and F, etc. is a juristic person with respect to the closed pressure-free business between the non-party company and the non-party company.