1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 2, 2015, C agreed to lend KRW 11 million to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant to the Defendant at 29% interest rate, between C and D, which is the Defendant’s authority representing the Defendant, by introducing the Plaintiff. On the same day, C transferred KRW 11 million to the Defendant’s account on the same day.

On February 8, 2017, C transferred the above loan claims against the Defendant to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant thereof.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 10 million and interest and delay damages.

B. Even if D did not have the authority to act for the Defendant, the Defendant granted D the basic right of representation to allow D to operate the business under the name of the Defendant, and D had the Defendant’s seal imprint, proxy certificate, resident registration certificate, vehicle registration certificate, vehicle and passbook at the time of the above lending, and therefore C has a justifiable reason to believe that D had the authority to act for the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

2. Determination

A. It is insufficient to acknowledge that only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7 and Gap evidence Nos. 10 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) are the authority to borrow loans on behalf of the defendant on January 2, 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, 10, 10, and 1 and 2 as to the assertion of expression agency, D is the defendant's Bushel, D is the defendant's bushel, D was operating a personal enterprise called E which registered its business in the defendant's name with the consent from the defendant as of January 2, 2015, and was using the account in the defendant's name, and D was operating a F car in the defendant's name. D requested the plaintiff to lend KRW 11 million to the plaintiff on January 2, 2015, and lent KRW 11 million to the plaintiff's brokerage.