1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff deleted "the power of representation granted by the Plaintiff A" in the third 17th 17th tier of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the fourth 9 to 19th tier of the judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the right of representation granted by the Plaintiff A is used as follows; and (c) thus, it is citing

“B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant F entered into a contract for food materials supply with Defendant D by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and Defendant C entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract with regard to the sales of goods under the above food materials supply contract. As such, there is no obligation of performance guarantee of KRW 15,00,000 based on the above performance guarantee insurance contract, and any obligation of KRW 15,000,000 for credit goods based on the above food materials supply contract, and Defendant F is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 as compensation for damages arising from the above tort.

2) Defendant C’s assertion that the above performance guarantee insurance contract was concluded by the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, and thus valid between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. Even if Defendant F stolen the Plaintiff’s name, Defendant C had the basic authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Defendant C had justifiable grounds to believe that Defendant C had the authority to conclude the above performance guarantee insurance contract, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable for the above performance guarantee insurance contract pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act. (3) Defendant D’s assertion concluded a food materials supply contract with Defendant F for whom the power of representation was granted by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to supply food materials to the store operated by the Plaintiff. Although the food materials were supplied to the said store, the Plaintiff did not receive the above amount of money equivalent to KRW 14,97,529, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above unpaid amount to Defendant D.

Even if Defendant F stolen the name of the Plaintiff, Defendant F had the basic authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Defendant D has the authority to conclude the above food materials supply contract.