2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. (1) In a case where a person acts in his/her own name by deceiving the other party as if he/she was the principal, without indicating the relevant legal doctrine as an agent, and only in a case where a person acts in his/her own name by deceiving the other party as if he/she was the principal, the legal doctrine of an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act may be applied mutatis mutandis to the case where there are special circumstances. Here, special circumstances refer to the situation where a person who used the principal has basic power of representation to act in his/her own, and the other party has justifiable reasons to believe that

(2) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff granted D basic power of representation concerning the instant additional loan contract, and it is reasonable to deem D had justifiable grounds to believe that D had concluded the instant additional loan contract exercising the Plaintiff’s power as the Plaintiff himself/herself, and therefore, the Plaintiff is liable for the instant additional loan agreement in accordance with the analogical application of Article 126 of the Civil Act by analogy of the legal principle on the apparent representation.

① The Plaintiff entered into the instant first loan contract and delivered a passbook and credit card in his name to the Defendant, which can be deemed as granting the Plaintiff’s basic power of attorney to D.

(2)