1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance Nos. 8, 11, and below is not used as set forth in the following (2); and (b) thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Parts to be dried;

C. According to the facts and evidence found earlier as to whether the Defendant was liable to act as an expression agent for the instant contract, it can be acknowledged that C had the fundamental power to conclude a contract on certain matters, such as the Defendant’s ordinary purchase of materials and sales of products at the time of entering into the instant contract.

Furthermore, we examine whether there is a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff has the authority to conclude the instant contract beyond the above basic power of attorney.

The facts and evidence as seen earlier, and the following facts revealed by the statements in Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 10, 28, 29, and 30, namely, (i) the existing gas supply and facility support contract between G and the defendant was concluded on October 13, 2014 by the plaintiff's referral; (ii) the defendant's name entered into the contract with C, which is not the representative director, and (iii) the defendant's position as the president and the name of the representative director, (iv) thereby the plaintiff moves C into the defendant's actual business entity, and (v) even after K was appointed as the defendant's representative director while investing funds in the defendant company, K was entrusted with the defendant's overall business entity, so it was difficult for the plaintiff to understand the investment details of K and the situation in which the representative director of the defendant company was changed to K; and (v) the contract of this case was concluded within the defendant's workplace and held a corporate director; and (vi) the contract of this case was concluded without any substantial amendment to the terms of the contract of this case other party.