The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

1. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the first instance are as follows, except for the amendments and addition of “2. Additional Judgment” as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

2. The two pages 2 to delete the “2 Dong” of the 5th page, 2. The 2nd page “F” to “F”, and the 38th page of the 38th page of the 2nd page “Witness” to “a witness of the first instance trial,” and the following is added to the last 5th page “A” [the Defendant 3 1-1-2 of this case’s evidence 1].

The argument is asserted.

C We examine whether C has the authority to prepare the above loan certificate in the name of the defendant, since there is no dispute between the parties.

In light of the fact that the Defendant delegates all business related to the lease of multi-household housing to C, that C was entitled to prepare the above loan certificate on behalf of the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) it was intended for the Plaintiff to return the leased deposit to F; (b) it used 25 million won to use the leased deposit for its original purpose; and (c) C received or returned the leased deposit to the Defendant’s account opened with the Defendant’s permission; and (b) it was used for the business related to the lease; and (c) it was also received the above loan money as the account; and (d) it was used for the other business related to the lease.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion C’s borrowing of KRW 26 million from the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant constitutes a breach of trust act, and the Plaintiff knew or could have known such circumstances. As such, the Defendant does not bear any responsibility for the Plaintiff on the interpretation of the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act by analogy.

B. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that borrowing KRW 26 million from the Plaintiff was an act of acting as an agent in breach of trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above assertion is not accepted without examining the remainder.