1. Defendant B, Hongwon Co., Ltd., and Hobu Co., Ltd. jointly share to the Plaintiff KRW 22,240,000 and the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A corporation

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) around January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with Australia worth KRW 22,240,000.

(2) Even if the Defendant is not a party to a transaction, the Defendant’s managing director C entered into a supply contract for sun-dried salt on behalf of the Defendant with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that C has the right to represent the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable for

(3) Since the Defendant ratified an ex post facto transaction, it is obligated to pay the above amount.

B. (1) The written evidence No. 1-2 of the judgment alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant A entered into a supply contract for sun-dried salt with the Plaintiff as a party to the transaction and received the supply thereof, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) In order to establish an expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the agent has a certain scope of authority of representation, and that the agent has the authority to do a juristic act beyond the basic authority of representation, and that the other party has the authority to do a juristic act beyond the basic authority of representation.

Here, the existence or absence of justifiable reason should be objectively observed and determined in all circumstances existing when the act of a named agent is performed, and the burden of proving that there is a justifiable reason is a person who asserts the effect of the expression agent.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da99617, Apr. 26, 2013). The evidence submitted by the Defendant to the health care unit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da99617, Apr. 26, 2013) was insufficient to recognize that C had the basic right to conclude a contract on behalf of the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and that there was

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of expression representation is without merit.

(3) In addition, the defendant is also the defendant.