The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

1. According to the record as to the first ground for appeal, as to the claim of this case as of March 28, 2014 and the application for modification of the cause of claim as of March 28, 2014 as stated on the date of pleading 15 of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that, around the first instance court, C, who is the head of the overseas business group of the Defendant, has the authority to conclude the instant basic supply contract on behalf of the Defendant as the Defendant’s manager or the commercial employer with a partial comprehensive power of attorney, and that, in addition, C constitutes an expression manager of this case or an expression agent under Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act, the Defendant

In addition, the court below organized the plaintiff's argument as to the plaintiff's primary claim as above, and judged that C is not a manager, but a commercial employee with a partial comprehensive power of attorney, and did not proceed further to the determination as to the assertion as the conjunctive assertion.

The judgment of the court below is based on the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the plaintiff's omission of judgment as to the plaintiff's expressive manager, failure to meet the reasons for the judgment, etc.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. Since a commercial employee, who has a partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, may perform all acts other than trials on a specific type of business or a specific matter awarded by him/her, there is no need to obtain separate authorization from the proprietor for each act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20440, 20457 Decided May 28, 2009, etc.).