1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to this court is presented, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the court’s explanation on the instant case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “ May 31, 2016” No. 2, No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ January 31, 2017,” and the Plaintiff’s new assertion is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment, which is identical to that of the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it

2. Additional determination

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant alleged in the Plaintiff’s investment contract of this case recognized that C is a substantial master of the Defendant, that C entered into the investment contract of this case with the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate and seal imprint certificate, and that C is disadvantageous to the Defendant’s president and gave instructions to the Defendant’s employees, it has the authority to represent or act on behalf of the Defendant.

Even if C did not have such authority, the Plaintiff knew or could not know that C had no authority to represent or represent the Defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant actually paid interest to the plaintiff from February 11, 2014 in accordance with the commitment to the plaintiff by C, at least the defendant ratified the act of C.

Ultimately, the agreement between C and the Plaintiff is effective on the part of the Defendant, and the amount of KRW 2 million or KRW 500,000 per month that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff from February 2014 to January 2017 is merely interest.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the remaining principal of KRW 70 million and damages for delay.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7 and the testimony of the first instance court witnesses G and C, C made a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay interest at the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014, and the Defendant’s “the instant investment contract.”