The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the price of the instant goods, on the ground that: (a) it is not recognized that A obtained the power of representation from the Defendant for the instant goods transaction; (b) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that A had the right to order the instant goods; and (c) it cannot be deemed that the expressed agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act was constituted

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by omitting judgment on the plaintiff's assertion or by misapprehending the legal principles on abuse of power of representation

Although the Plaintiff asserts the establishment of an expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted only in the final appeal.

2. In a case where the amount of damages is limited in light of the principle of fair compensation system, taking into account all the circumstances as to the fourth ground for appeal, the fact-finding or the rate of liability mitigation is within the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified to limit the defendant's liability ratio to 70% of the amount of damages in consideration of various circumstances, such as the size of the company of the plaintiff and the defendant, the transfer size between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the transaction size of the goods of this case.