1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows: (a) other than adding the following 2.3 judgments as to the matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial, the reasoning for the first instance judgment is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C had the fundamental power to engage in legal acts on behalf of the Defendant with the authority to lease and manage the multi-family house D in Seosan City owned by the Defendant. However, within the scope of such authority, C borrowed the said money on behalf of the Defendant, or at least C was believed to have a legitimate authority to borrow the said money on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable by an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

B. In light of the judgment, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant granted C the right to receive rent from the lessee of the above multi-family house owned by the defendant through the deposit account in the name of the defendant, and to pay it as management expenses, etc., but the above evidence and evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2-2 of this court, each fact inquiry into the Seocho market, the Seosan market of this court, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, and Sejong market is insufficient to recognize that C borrowed the above money on behalf of the plaintiff within the basic right of representation, or that there is a justifiable reason to believe that C had a legitimate authority to borrow the above money on behalf of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.