2. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C are assessed against Defendant B.

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the court of first instance ratified the act of unauthorized Representation since he/she paid part of the loan to the defendant D, considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial.

The ratification of an act of unauthorized representation is a single act to vest the effects of the act in his/her own knowledge of the act of unauthorized representation, and it is not required to specify the method of declaration of intention, so it may be done in an implied manner. However, in order to recognize an implied ratification, there are circumstances to deem that the person himself/herself has sufficiently understood the legal status of the act of unauthorized representation and, however, it should be recognized that the result of the act belongs to him/her based on his/her intention.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). According to the evidence No. 11, it is recognized that money was deposited into the account under the name of Defendant D in the name of the Plaintiff and its early September 14, 2011 through March 24, 2014.

However, in the case of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the remittance can be made based on various legal causes. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant D ratified the act of unauthorized Representation solely on the grounds that money was remitted under Defendant D’s name; Defendant D is the father of Defendant B and C; thus, it is sufficient to deem that the said money was provided to his parent regardless of the Plaintiff. In light of the above, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the basis of the above facts, and there is evidence to otherwise recognize.