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

A. The defendant is a person who operates a business under the trade name of "C chain Headquarters".

B. D is the vice head of the C chain Headquarters, who is delegated by the Defendant with the authority to execute the franchise agreement on C chain stores.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) contractual responsibilities (main assertion) A) the Plaintiff entered into a consignment operation contract with D, the Defendant’s lawful representative, and the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff entrusts the Defendant with the operation of E (hereinafter “instant consignment operation contract”).

B) Even if D did not receive the power of representation for the instant consignment operation contract from the Defendant, the Defendant indicated that D granted the power of representation to D. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act. (c) As there is justifiable ground to believe D is entitled to conclude the instant consignment operation contract on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to make payment to the Plaintiff of KRW 154,415,440 as compensation for damages under Article 7 of the instant consignment operation contract, as well as damages for delay. (2) If D did not have the authority to conclude the instant consignment operation contract on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to make the instant consignment operation contract by deceiving the Plaintiff under Article 756 of the Civil Act. (b) The Defendant, as D’s employer, is obligated to pay damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the conclusion of the instant consignment operation contract, and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion did not delegate D the authority to conclude the instant consignment operation contract.

D Even if D had concluded the entrusted operation contract of this case by deceiving the plaintiff, the plaintiff knew that the act of entering into the entrusted operation contract of this case does not constitute the defendant's act of performing his duties.