beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is the same as the part of “request against Defendant E” in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the part written by the court of first instance under Paragraph 2 below, since it is identical to the part of “request against Defendant E” in Article 420 of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. If the part of the joint and several surety under Section 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is not recognized, the defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's assertion is therefore without merit. Thus, the part of the "representative" among the joint and several surety of the limit trade agreement (No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is not recognized, and the defendant's argument pointing this out
(b) Forms 6, 7, and 11 of the first instance judgment are as follows.
With respect to “A”, the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff a letter of delegation with the Defendant’s seal impression affixed by K as an employee of C Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant credit transaction agreement, and submitted to the Plaintiff a certificate of personal seal impression and K’s personal seal impression issued directly by the Defendant with the above letter of delegation accompanied by the above letter of delegation. The Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was liable for expressive representation pursuant to Article 125 of the Civil Act and Article 126 of the Civil Act, insofar as the Plaintiff and the certificate of identity are verified. In addition, the Plaintiff acted in good faith as to the fact that a third party, who is the other party to the act, does not have the right of representation in order to have the effect of the act as an agent, as well as to the fact that the third party, who is the other party to the act, actually did not have the right of representation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da53762, Jun. 12, 199; 208Da56392, May 28, 2009).