1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an installment financing contract with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff offered as a security the event organizer (B) that the Plaintiff joined the UAS in the UASB and borrowed KRW 145 million from the Defendant as a monthly installment payment of KRW 3,811,290,000 from the Defendant, monthly interest rate of KRW 48 months, annual interest rate of KRW 48 months, annual interest rate of KRW 11.9%, and interest rate of KRW 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant first installment contract”).

(However, the date of preparation of the contract is indicated as January 23, 2013, when the loan was executed. On the date when the Plaintiff entered into the installment financing contract of this case, the contract was written in the Plaintiff’s name, and the agreement was written that the Plaintiff purchases a dump truck (i.e., “C”, but it appears to be an error in I’s misunderstanding in light of the chassis number,” and that in purchasing the said dum truck from the Defendant’s purchase price, KRW 100 million out of the purchase price was written in 2,727,63 won, monthly installments, interest rate of KRW 48 months, interest rate of KRW 13.9% per annum, interest rate of KRW 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant 2 installment contract”).

(However, the date of preparation of each of the above contracts is written as of January 18, 2013, on which the loan has been executed). [Reasons for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff entered into the first installment financing contract of this case with the defendant in order to substitute the loan with a low interest rate because the interest rate of installment loan received in the course of purchasing the original bencing vehicle is high. However, the plaintiff did not have entered into a dump truck contract of this case with the defendant in order to purchase dump truck from the environmental logistics in the same city.

In other words, E is authorized to grant only the power of representation on the first installment financing contract of this case from the plaintiff.