The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court is difficult to recognize that the Defendant and E have agreed specifically on the important matters of the instant service contract, and the F is entitled to enter into the instant service contract on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant.

or the defendant judged that it is difficult to regard the F as ratification of F's act of unauthorized Representation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the conclusion of a contract, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant or F gave the Plaintiff the trust that the instant service contract will be concluded with a certain degree, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the liability for negligence in concluding a contract and the employer liability, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that the business performed by the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Article 61 of the Commercial Act, on the grounds that the business performed by the Defendant was merely a prior work at the stage of contract negotiations that induce the Plaintiff to enter into the instant service contract with the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is a claim for the remuneration of the merchant.