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 court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, with the exception of partly modifying or adding as stated in Paragraph (2) below, and the determination of the plaintiff's additional assertion in the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph (3) (in the case of a claim that the plaintiff has been maintained from the first instance among the grounds alleged in the court of first instance through appeal, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff does not differ from the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance even if all of the evidences submitted by the plaintiff are examined), and all of them are accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. Each “D Co., Ltd.” among the two pages 9, 5 pages 10, 12, and 7 pages 4 of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be “D Co., Ltd.” respectively.

B. On 4th of the first instance judgment, “A No. 26-1” is added to 17th of the 17th instance judgment.

C. On the 6th 20th 20th s in the first instance judgment, “G” is added next to “G”.

3. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's additional assertion is that since the representative G of the defendant logistics transport business group concluded the special agreement in this case with the plaintiff is an abuse of the power of representation in G, the defendant does not assume the responsibility under the special agreement in this case, even if he did not assume the responsibility under Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Code, that the special agreement in this case was made on behalf of the defendant by G, a representative of the defendant, and that the defendant,

First of all, I examine whether the representation under Article 125 of the Civil Code is constituted.

In order to establish the above expressive representation, G with the special agreement of this case does not have the power of representation.

However, as stated in Article 3(a) of the judgment of the court of first instance, G is not likely to establish an expressive representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act, since G was authorized to conclude the instant agreement as the head of the Defendant Logistics Transport Business Group upon entering into the instant agreement.

Next, whether the representation of expression under Article 126 of the Civil Code is established or not.