1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the applicant, lent KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant with a loan of KRW 36 months, interest rate of loan 12.90%, and overdue interest rate of 25% (hereinafter “the instant loan contract”) and then remitted KRW 35,00,000 to the account of C, which is a partner of the second class transaction.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was unable to receive the principal and interest of the loan as stipulated in the instant loan agreement from May 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant concluded the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff and received the loan from the Plaintiff, but from May 2018, the Plaintiff did not pay the principal and interest of the loan as prescribed in the said loan agreement to the Plaintiff and lost the benefit of time due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the principal and interest of the loan from May 18, 2018. As such, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant a claim against the Defendant for the payment of damages for delay as to KRW 26,482,60, the sum of the principal remaining as of June 18, 2018, KRW 26,214,271, interest 263,325, and damages for delay

Even if a loan contract entered into under the name of the defendant was forged by D, the defendant granted a fundamental power of representation to D in light of the fact that the defendant offered the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, identification card, seal, etc. for the transfer of the name of the motor vehicle. Therefore, D seems to be a representative of the defendant

Thus, even if the Plaintiff entered into the instant loan contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff had the authority to conclude the instant loan contract on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the said money to the Plaintiff on the responsibility of expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

B. Whether to recognize the responsibility as a party to the instant loan agreement