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. Fact that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition [based for recognition], Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The defendant is a company whose main purpose is indoor construction, and whose representative director C is the same as D, and D is known to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's leakage or E's business.

B. On November 2, 2010, 2010, the notary public, at Law Firm Thai, No. 4940, Nov. 2, 2010, “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,054,100,000 in a lump sum until December 31, 2010, and shall add 20% interest interest per annum after the due date.”

the notarial deed of this case (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed of this case")

A. The notarial deed of this case was prepared. The phrase "F entrusted the preparation of the notarial deed of this case on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the power of representation on commission is recognized by the power of delegation of the principal and a certificate of personal seal impression" was affixed with the defendant's corporate seal impression affixed, and the defendant's corporate seal impression certificate was attached.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant’s representative director: (a) issued the Defendant’s corporate seal impression and a corporate seal impression certificate to D or F; (b) granted the right of representation to prepare the instant payment memorandum and to entrust the preparation of the instant authentic deed; and (c) the instant payment memorandum and the instant authentic deed were prepared by lawful power of representation.

② Even if D did not have the right of representation, the Plaintiff’s agent F is deemed to have a reasonable ground to believe that D had the right to represent the Defendant. Therefore, the instant Notarial deed, which was executed by F, is valid in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression representation.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,054,100,000 as agreed in the letter of payment in this case and delay damages.

B. The defendant did not have any obligation to pay the money set forth in the letter of payment in this case to the plaintiff or E.