1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main text of

(2) The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the result of the examination by the first instance court on the evidence duly examined by the Defendant representative director, the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court are deemed legitimate, even if the result of the examination by the Defendant representative director of the first instance court is viewed as having been examined).

A. As to the assertion of expression representation, the Plaintiff did not have received the power of representation from the Defendant as to the act of borrowing KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 50 million and damages for delay according to the apparent representation beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Code as to D, E, or F's act, or according to the apparent representation liability after the lapse of the power of representation under Article 129 of the Civil Code.

On the other hand, the facts that F is the defendant's internal director do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by the statement in Gap evidence 1-3, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that F borrowed KRW 50 million from the plaintiff.

Next, as seen earlier, D or E prepared documents, such as a cash car certificate, receipt certificate, and each loan certificate (Article 126-1 to 4 of the Civil Act) to the Plaintiff. However, as to whether D or E had the basic power of representation to represent the Defendant (Article 126 of the Civil Act), it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the evidence No. 2-1, No. 3, No. 4, No. 7-1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 111, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. D or E has no other authority to borrow KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant (Article 129 of the Civil Act).