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 of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal or addition of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the 6th page, the part "(based for recognition)" in Chapters 9 through 3 shall be written as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(j) On June 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the sales commission under Article 6 of the instant sales agency contract with the Seoul Central District Court 2017da5123891, and argued that the instant confirmation document with the content of concluding the sales agency contract of this case is invalid since G was prepared beyond the scope of authority. (ii) As a result of the examination including the examination of the witness with respect to G, the Defendant was sentenced to the full dismissal of the Defendant’s claim on September 19, 2019, and the summary of the reasoning is as follows.

① Since the power of attorney prepared by the Defendant states that G shall delegate all the authority concerning consultation on business affairs with the Plaintiff under the instant parcelling-out contract and the overall business affairs of sales business employees, it is determined that the Defendant granted comprehensive power of attorney to G regarding the business affairs under the instant parcelling-out contract.

② The contents of the instant agreement do not seem to deviate from the scope of the comprehensive power of representation delegated by G to the Defendant in relation to the contents of the instant agreement as stipulated in the sales agency contract.

③ The sole evidence submitted by the Defendant alone constitutes a breach of trust as the content of the instant agreement, which is excessively unfavorable to the Defendant.

It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff was an abuse of the right of representation in G, and furthermore, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the act of breach of trust or abuse of the right of representation in G.

3..