1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" to the assertion that the plaintiff adds to this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Around November 2015, the Plaintiff asserted for additional determination (i.e., the Plaintiff conferred upon B fundamental power of representation for the conclusion of the insurance contract, and did not confer any power of representation on the person under whose name the Plaintiff was named.

Since there is no basic authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff for a person who has entered into the instant loan contract with the name of the Plaintiff, the legal doctrine of expression agency should not be applied by analogy to the instant loan contract.

⑵ 판단 ㈎ 원고로부터 보험계약 체결에 관한 기본대리권을 받은 B이 성명불상자와 공모하여 원고 명의의 전자문서인 론카드대출신청서를 위작하고 행사함으로써 피고와 이 사건 대출계약을 체결한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다.

Then, it is reasonable to determine whether the plaintiff's name is a person with no name in B, and whether there was a basic power of attorney to act on behalf of the plaintiff together with B.

On a different premise, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

㈏ 이와 달리 오로지 B에게만 원고를 대리할 기본대리권이 있다고 보더라도, 대리인이 사자(使者) 또는 임의로 선임한 복대리인을 통하여 권한 외의 법률행위를 한 경우 민법 제126조의 표현대리와 관련하여 기본대리권 흠결 문제는 발생하지 않는바(대법원 1998. 3. 27. 선고 97다48982 판결), B은 성명불상자를 사자 또는 복대리인으로 삼아 피고와 이 사건 대출계약을 체결하였다고 봄이 타당하므로, 기본대리권의 흠결을 지적하는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

I agree with this conclusion.