B Around May 10, 2017, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction contract (hereinafter “the instant credit transaction contract”) with the Plaintiff and the loan principal of KRW 48,000,000, the loan period of KRW 60, the loan interest rate of KRW 8.9% per annum (25% per annum).

B From August 2017, the obligation under the above credit transaction contract was overdue, and the obligation is the total of KRW 46,721,186 of the remainder of the loan principal as of October 17, 2017, interest KRW 1,00,282, damages for delay KRW 55,818,286.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that, as at the time of the above credit transaction contract, the plaintiff fulfilled his/her duty of care necessary to confirm himself/herself by telephone to the defendant, the plaintiff asserts that there was a reasonable ground to believe that he/she had the authority to conclude a credit transaction contract on behalf of the defendant B.

The defendant asserts to the effect that B only delivered relevant documents, etc. as necessary for the registration of automobiles, and did not grant the power of representation in relation to credit transaction contracts, and that the plaintiff's confirmation is not the defendant, but the defendant is a male living together with B.

B. Article 126 of the Civil Act provides that “Where an agent has performed a juristic act other than his/her authority and there is a reasonable ground to believe that the third party has such authority, the principal shall be liable for such act.”

At this time, the existence of justifiable reasons must be objectively observed and determined in all circumstances existing in the event of an act of acting as an agent by a named agent.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da27001, Jul. 26, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da27001, Jul. 26, 2012). The foregoing evidence indicated as evidence No. 4, and Party A.