1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid since the Plaintiff merely delegated his/her authority over practical negotiations regarding a merger with the Defendant Company to S and T, who was an employee of the Plaintiff. As such, each of the instant sales contracts was concluded by S and T beyond the scope of delegation.

B. 1) The authentication system of a deed signed by a private person under the Notary Public Act is presumed to have been established as a notary public unless there are special circumstances, such as assertion and proof of the fact that the notary public did not go through the same procedure in the authentication of a deed signed by a private person, or that the notary public did not affix his/her signature or seal to the deed signed by a private person before a notary public, or that the notary public does not have his/her signature or seal to the deed signed by a private person (Article 57(1) of the Notary Public Act). In authentication of a deed signed by a private person, the notary public must undergo prior formalities such as confirmation of the client (Article 27) or confirmation of the client (Article 30) and certification of his/her right of representation (Article 31) pursuant to the Notary Public Act. Thus, the authentication system of a deed signed by a notary public is presumed to have been established as a deed signed by a notary public (see Supreme Court Order 2008S119, Jan. 16, 2009).