A. On November 3, 2014, in relation to the Defendant Company C’s claim for the refund of allowances to Defendant Company C, C, upon the Defendant’s request, issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note in which the Defendant was the addressee on November 3, 2014, the date of issuance “the amount of KRW 10 million,” the Plaintiff and C’s “the date of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment,” respectively.

B. C had the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal imprint at the time of the issuance of the said Promissory Notes, and affixed a seal on the issuer column of the Promissory Notes instead of the Plaintiff.

C. On October 6, 2015, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and C with respect to KRW 100 million of the Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 100 million, and the payment order was finalized to the effect that “A debtor (in this case, “the Plaintiff and C”) jointly pays KRW 100 million to the creditor (hereinafter “Defendant”) for KRW 100,000,000, and the expenses for demand procedure.”

(The grounds for recognition) No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as well as the purport of the whole pleadings, by the court of first instance and the court of first instance and the court of first instance and the court of first instance and the court of first instance and second instance.

2. The parties’ assertion 1: ① the Plaintiff’s mother C received the authority from the Plaintiff and issued the Promissory Notes on behalf of the Plaintiff; ② even if the Plaintiff did not grant such authority, C had the Plaintiff’s seal impression and the Plaintiff’s seal impression; thus, C was believed to have the right to issue the Promissory Notes on behalf of the Plaintiff, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that C was entitled to issue the Promissory Notes on behalf of the Plaintiff, or ③ is not so.

Even if the plaintiff was served with the decision of the payment order of this case and the decision of specification of property, the plaintiff did not raise any objection, so C's act of unauthorized representation.