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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court's explanation of this case is as follows: "In the procedure," "in the procedure," and the plaintiff's assertion of expression representation newly added by this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the determination of the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have delegated the conclusion of the second sales contract with regard to the right to purchase and sell the instant water, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “G”) appears to have a reasonable ground to believe that the Plaintiff had the power to conclude the second sales contract on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant inasmuch as the Plaintiff conferred basic power to the instant commercial association and provided the instant documents for securing the right to purchase and sell the water of the instant water of the instant case, and therefore, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “G”) asserts to the effect that the expressed agent is established and the Defendant is directly responsible for the seller under the

The plaintiff's above assertion appears to be "Apparent representation in excess of authority" under Article 126 of the Civil Act. Thus, in order to claim the effect of an expression agent under the above provision, it is required that the other party believe that the representative has the right of representation in the case of expressing or explicitly explicitly and with the intention of representation, or that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has the right of representation in the case of an act other than authority with the intention of representation. The existence of justifiable reason here should be determined by objectively observing and observing all the circumstances existing at the time when the act of an agent by the name is performed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49814 Decided June 28, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da30331 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.). The mere fact that the Defendant provided the instant documents for securing the right is that the instant commercial association refers to the Defendant’s proxy.