1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Paragraph 1 A of this Article applies without the Plaintiff’s consent.

The interest agreement of this case is null and void against the plaintiff, since the loan certificate of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "the loan certificate of this case") stated as the "payment of interest on the third part of each month in the event that the above amount is not repaid until April 24, 2005" (hereinafter referred to as the "interest agreement of this case").

Therefore, the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff 46,190,789 won, which was distributed in accordance with the instant interest agreement, as unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff consented to the instant loan agreement with Defendant D along with the form on which the instant interest agreement was written on the instant loan certificate. If, even if D stated the instant interest agreement without the Plaintiff’s delegation, it was ratified as to D’s act of unauthorized representation, such as the Plaintiff’s receipt of the payment order and without raising any objection for a long time, there was justifiable reason to believe that D’s act was an expression agent, and that D’s act was the Defendant’s right to make the instant interest agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the part received by the Defendant under the interest agreement of this case is not unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. The validity of the interest agreement of this case (1) is examined as to whether D obtained the power of representation from the Plaintiff regarding the interest agreement of this case.

In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that "No later than April 24, 2005, when the above amount is not repaid by April 24, 2005, D shall pay interest on the third part of each month" at the bottom of the payment date while signing and sealing the loan certificate as joint and several sureties.

However, it is argued that there was a legitimate representation relationship between D and the Plaintiff with respect to the interest agreement of this case.