The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and the instant act of assuming debt obligations was performed with a view to promoting H or the Defendant’s profit, regardless of the Plaintiff’s business purpose

The Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of abuse of power of representation on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant knew or could have known such circumstances.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and rejected the Plaintiff’s joint tort claim on the ground that the Defendant, as a counterpart with an interest separate from H, assumed the instant act of bearing the obligation between H in order to avoid the risk associated with the instant construction, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant actively participated in the instant act of breach of trust, such as inducing the Defendant to commit a breach of trust or participating in the entire process of the act of breach of trust

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or in

3. The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.