The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

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

1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that, on behalf of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”), K had a comprehensive power to provide the instant stocks and shares as security for transfer on behalf of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and accordingly, K concluded the instant security agreement on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and that K did not have known or could not have known that the instant security agreement that K concluded on behalf of the Defendant was an act of acting in breach of trust against the Defendant’s interest, or that K’s intent on the instant security agreement was not for the Defendant.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In addition, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the confirmation of the parties, the granting of power of representation, the abuse of power of representation, or the breach of trust under the Commercial Act, or in violation of the Supreme Court precedents, or in violation of the principle

2. The defendant asserts that the judgment below, which held that L, the representative director of the defendant, made a loan to the plaintiff in accordance with the plaintiff's demand for repayment, and the defendant's shares owned by M, are transferred to AU under the actual control of the plaintiff, and thereby made an implied ratification of the transfer security agreement of this case, which is the act of unauthorized representation of K, by affixing the seal on December 30, 201 on "the column of the target company" under the contract for acquisition of shares and management right transfer agreement, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for implied ratification and invalidation, and in violation of the Supreme Court precedents.

However, this case’s shares and shares.