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 reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is identical with that of the judgment of the court of first instance, from 3 to 5, under the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as follows.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that C grants F the right of representation for overall business, and even if not, at least, granted the right of representation to enter into a contract for electrical construction prior to the preparation of the instant payment note, there was a fundamental right of representation, and at the time, there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff had the right of representation against F. Thus, the Defendant is liable for the expressive agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act with respect to the instant payment note.

However, it is recognized that F actually operated C and F had the power of representation to enter into a contract, such as electrical construction, in the name of F.

However, on May 27, 2013, prior to the preparation of the letter of rejection of the instant payment, in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: (i) in the event that C provides joint and several sureties with respect to other obligations to the Plaintiff of G on May 27, 2013, prior to the preparation of the letter of rejection of the instant payment, the Plaintiff was a representative director of C, and the said E was well aware of the fact that he was his spouse; (ii) since the letter of rejection of the instant payment was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed by C as a third party, it was necessary to directly verify the intent of the C’s joint and several sureties; (iii) the Plaintiff could have easily contacted D or E with it; and (iv) at the time of the preparation of the letter of rejection of the instant payment, the Plaintiff was not present with D and E, and the Plaintiff was a joint and several sureties or a joint and several sureties.