1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court of first instance shall use the "Plaintiff" as the "Defendant" respectively; (b) the "Defendant decided to guarantee the obligation to purchase freight cars from H" to 15; and (c) the "H" as the "H (hereinafter referred to as the "H")" in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) the "H" in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance as the "H (hereinafter referred to as the "H")"; and (e) the plaintiff added the "additional decision" in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act to the "additional decision" as the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the "additional decision" as to the newly asserted or the incidental argument.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1 (No. 1) (No. 1), the summary of the expressive agency’s liability (i.e., judgment on the main claim), and the agreement is “instant collateral guarantee agreement”.

(2) Even if this employee was forged by D, considering the circumstances that the Defendant issued the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression and resident registration certificate to H, and received information from the Plaintiff’s employee to verify the principal obligation details and the guarantor’s entry report, etc., the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that H has the power to conclude the instant probation guarantee agreement on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 107,617,495, and KRW 104,615,540, out of the limit of KRW 53,000,00,000, which is the maximum limit of the instant probation guarantee agreement, in accordance with the express representation doctrine under Article 126 of the Civil Act. (2) In order to claim the effect of the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act of this Act, the agent should have basic power, and further, there is justifiable grounds to believe that the other party has the right to represent.