The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff should add to this court.

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The first instance court's judgment Nos. 11 to 13 are as follows.

A written confirmation to the effect that “The remainder of the sale price shall be paid if a lease contract with respect to the instant store is concluded” from E on August 15, 2014 (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”).

Upon receipt of the instant confirmation, E entered its resident registration number and mobile phone number in the instant confirmation. E used the Defendant’s “head of the headquarters”, but as an individual entrepreneur, received the payment fee for the conclusion of the sales contract from the Defendant, and arranged for the sale of the instant store.” On the ground for recognition of the 14th Special Self-Governing Party Decision 2, “A evidence No. 18, 24 and E’s testimony as a witness.”

Under the second judgment of the court of first instance, the "five years" shall be raised to "six years".

The 3th judgment of the first instance court is as follows. The 10th to 13th judgment are as follows.

[2] Furthermore, the instant confirmation was written in the name of E without the Defendant’s indication after the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

In this context, even if other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and some testimony of the witness F and witness E of the first instance trial, it is insufficient to view that the agreement that the Defendant, either directly or through E, leases the store of this case as Byung won, was included in the instant sales contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that E has a legal effect on the defendant, since E has agreed on the defendant's duty of lease to the store of this case as an expression manager or expression agent.

However, as seen earlier.