1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On September 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with B, the Defendant’s agent (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant supply contract, B had a copy of the Defendant’s performance guarantee insurance policy, the Defendant’s name’s business registration certificate, the Defendant’s resident registration certificate, and the Defendant’s resident registration certificate, and the performance guarantee insurance policy was issued through the process of verifying the identity by using an authorized certificate. Thus, there was justifiable reason to believe that B had the authority to conclude the instant supply contract on behalf of the Defendant, even if it was not authorized to act on behalf of the Defendant, B had the right to act on behalf of the Defendant.

3. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above price of KRW 9,278,400 and the damages for delay from September 6, 2012, which is the day following the date of final supply of goods.

B. The defendant's assertion that it is necessary to allow the loan to the defendant, and the person who received the defendant's authorized certificate or certificate of personal seal is issued with the above performance guarantee insurance policy by stealing the defendant's name, and there is no fact that the defendant entered into the supply contract of this case with the plaintiff.

2. Determination:

A. The fact that B entered into the instant supply contract on behalf of the Defendant is without dispute between the parties. As to whether B had the authority to conclude the instant supply contract on behalf of the Defendant, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion of No. 11 is insufficient to recognize it solely with the descriptions of No. 2 and No. 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff as to whether an expression is represented by the Civil Act.