1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following items of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each "witness" of not more than 6th page 4 shall be considered as a "witness of the first instance trial".

Article 114(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The expression of intention expressed within the authority of an agent that he/she is for the principal shall take effect on the principal himself/herself,” thus, in principle, representation shall take effect on the principal directly indicating that he/she is for the principal.”

On the other hand, in the case of a partnership under the Civil Act, the partnership itself cannot be the principal because it is not corporate in the case of a so-called partnership representative, but it is sufficient to present the name of all the union members to the extent that the other party can know.

In addition, Article 48 of the Commercial Act provides that "the act of an agent of a commercial act does not indicate that he/she is acting for himself/herself, but if the other party does not know that he/she is acting for himself/herself, the agent may also demand performance of the act." Thus, even in a partnership representative, even if the juristic act does not indicate that it is acting for the partnership if it is performed as a commercial act, it extends to all the union members who are the principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da79340, Jan. 30, 2009).