2. The costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

A. In the trial of the party, the Plaintiff maintained the primary argument that the Defendant assumed the obligation to purchase the goods against D through D through agent, and the conjunctive argument that confirmed the assumption of obligation by D’s unauthorized representation. However, the Defendant assumed the obligation against D with the entire proof of the Plaintiff, including the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 11 and 12, which the Plaintiff submitted in the trial of the party, as well as the descriptions and images of the evidence No. 11 and 12.

Since it is insufficient to recognize that he/she has ratified the assumption of obligation, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justifiable.

B. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance between 4 and 6 shall be reversed as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(The facts acknowledged in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (main sentence 3). Around December 2017 following the suspension of business, D was directly traded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and D was traded by means of acquiring Kim from the Plaintiff and supplying the Defendant again. As a result, D was liable for the obligation to pay the Plaintiff, and D was supplied to F with Kim supplied from D, and D was supplied to the Defendant as an agent, and D was possessed with the Defendant’s seal for such agency duties, D was in possession of the Defendant’s seal for this agency duties, D was sent to the Defendant, and it appears that D had the Plaintiff deposit part of the goods with the Defendant, or deposited the Plaintiff directly with the Defendant’s trade name. If the Defendant traded with the Plaintiff after the suspension of business and the Defendant paid the amount directly to the Plaintiff, and if it was delivered an agreement with the Plaintiff that the Defendant bears the obligation to pay the goods exceeding KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, even if there was no obligation to pay the goods, it would be naturally natural to the Plaintiff and the Defendant.