1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 24, 2017, the gist of the cause of the claim: (a) the Defendant, either directly or by proxy, concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on October 24, 2017 (a) and (b) the Defendant is liable to pay the amount stated in the purport of the loan agreement to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, even if the Defendant did not have the authority to represent the Defendant with respect to the said loan agreement; and (c) the Defendant claims the payment of the amount stated in the claim.

2. Determination

A. In a case where: (a) evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which is a loan document under the name of the defendant, was forged and exercised by C regardless of the defendant’s intention; and (b) it is recognized that C acquired money from the plaintiff 40,000,000 won of the relevant loan from the defendant, based on the overall purport of the oral argument, based on the written evidence Nos. 9 (Seoul District Court Branch Office Branch Office of Magu District Court Decision 2018Da1674, Oct. 23, 2019, etc.); and (c) as such, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be deemed as having concluded a loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant (based on the defendant’s own will) while other documents submitted by the plaintiff cannot be deemed as having been submitted to the effect that the loan contract was concluded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

This part of the claim is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established when an agent expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intent to act on behalf of himself/herself, or performs an act other than his/her authority with his/her intention as an agent. In cases where an agent does not express his/her intent by means of deception, but instead, in cases where a juristic act was done in his/her own name by deceiving himself/herself as if he/she was the principal by using his/her name as if he/she was the principal, barring any special circumstance, the expression agent under the above Article cannot be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da52436, Feb. 23, 1993; 2001Da49814, Jun. 28, 2002; 1 through 6, 200.