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

In this regard, since the plaintiff appealed on the part of the principal lawsuit and the part against the counterclaim, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the principal lawsuit and the part against the plaintiff's counterclaim against the plaintiff.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (except for the part concerning the conclusion) except for the part as modified or additionally determined below, thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following judgments shall be added to the part 3-A (No. 7, No. 5) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not clearly indicate that he was acting as the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not bear any obligation under the instant sales contract. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not incur any obligation under the instant sales contract because the instant transaction constitutes a commercial activity as a merchant, and the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff was acting as the Plaintiff’s agent in the course of the transaction, the allegation is without merit. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s act of a person under the name of a person under the name of a person under the name of a person under the name of a person under the name of the Plaintiff constitutes an act of acting as his agent, the instant sales contract is alleged as acting as an agent without authority. However, there is no evidence to support that the

3. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the defendant's counterclaim shall be partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and correct.