1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Around January 2013, based on the facts that B borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff and repaid KRW 20 million, the remainder of KRW 80 million, and the Plaintiff was unable to pay KRW 80 million on August 8, 2013. Around August 8, 2013, B issued to the Plaintiff a letter of delegation (“a certificate of delegation 1; hereinafter “the instant letter of delegation”) stating that “as to the Defendants, the Defendants shall be responsible for the preparation of a notarial deed with joint and several sureties” (hereinafter “instant letter of delegation”). The power of delegation is stamped by the Defendants; Defendant C was stamped on July 29, 2013; Defendant D was accompanied with a certificate of personal seal impression issued on July 11, 2013; Defendant C was either in dispute between the parties concerned; or Defendant D was a woman living together, and the purport of the entire statement is recognized based on the overall statement’s evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-12.

2. The Defendants (i) granted B the authority to prepare and deliver the letter of delegation of this case to B or to jointly and severally guarantee the above 80 million won obligation.

Shebly, even if not, the Defendants issued and delivered a certificate of the personal seal impression to B, thereby granting the basic authority to B. Since the address of the Defendants changed so that they could not steals B’s seal, there was no negligence in reliance on the Plaintiff’s belief, the Defendants should be held liable for the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

3. Determination

(a) If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document is drawn up and sealed on whether there is a power of representation against B is affixed, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed, unless there are circumstances of the special group, unless it is demonstrated that the act of affixing the stamp image was carried out by a person other than the person in whose name the document is drawn up, or that it was carried out without being drawn up against the will of the person in whose name the document is drawn up,

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da462 delivered on June 13, 1997). The fact that a certificate of personal seal impression issued by the Defendants was attached to the power of attorney of this case.