1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of “2.4.7” to “1.6” under Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance, “1.4.7” under Section 10, “3.7, 2013.” under Section 5, “3.7, 2013.” under Section 5, “3.7, 2013.” under Section 9, “the Defendant insurance period” under Section 9, “the insurance period” under Section 9, and “the Plaintiff’s assertion that the court emphasizes or adds to this case” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is identical to the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not know at all about the conclusion of the instant car lease agreement (lease Operation Agreement) with respect to BMW X5, and concluded the said agreement without permission with the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression. As such, the said agreement does not affect the Plaintiff as an act of unauthorized representation and thus, the Defendant’s execution recommendation decision against the Plaintiff should be excluded.

B. In full view of the content of Article 7(2)2 and Article 11 of the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions (hereinafter “Electronic Document Act”) and the legislative purpose of the Electronic Document Act that seeks to secure the security and reliability of electronic documents and electronic transactions, the electronic document sent by the person verified by the licensed certification authority in the transaction by means of electronic documents, even if it was prepared and sent against his/her will, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to fall under “the electronic document received was sent by the addressee by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent,” and thus, the addressee of such case shall be deemed to fall under “the electronic document sent by the addressee by a person who has justifiable grounds to believe that it was based on the will of the originator or his/her agent.”