2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On October 26, 201, the Defendant and C, D, and E entered into a multi-family housing project agreement with the FF Co., Ltd. on the construction and sale of 10 units and 80 units of urban residential housing units in Echeon-si G, etc., and the F Co., Ltd. performed its new construction works.

B. H, as the Defendant’s three villages, C’s piloted life, D’s shape, and E’s spouse, was delegated by the Defendant, etc. to perform the construction work of new urban residential housing and the sale of housing units.

C. Around December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a payment note in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant payment note”) stating that “The Defendant shall pay KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant up to December 27, 2016 on the condition that he/she would attach two units of IB lending in Echeon-si, G.” (hereinafter “instant payment note”).

The letter of the instant payment was affixed with the seal imprint affixed by the Defendant’s name, and H issued a certificate of the personal seal impression under the Defendant’s name on the same day.

【Unfounded Grounds for Recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, the witness J's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since H duly delegated by the Defendant and drafted and delivered the instant payment note to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 10,000,000 and delay damages pursuant to the instant payment note.

B. Even if H did not receive the right of representation from the Defendant to prepare and deliver the instant payment note, the instant payment note was affixed with the seal imprint affixed to the Defendant’s name and the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression was attached. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the agreed amount of KRW 10,000,000 and the delay damages pursuant to the legal doctrine of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act.

3. Determination

A. The fact that H’s determination as to the assertion of acting representation places the Defendant’s seal imprint in the letter of payment in this case is disputed between the parties.