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. As to the instant case cited by the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s main grounds for appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. Even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court is re-examined, the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court seems legitimate.

Accordingly, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of “decision on the Plaintiff’s assertion of partial comprehensive power of representation or representation of expression,” and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance. As such, it is acceptable to accept it as it is

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s partial comprehensive power of representation or expression representation

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion at the construction site of this case, H, the Defendant’s site manager, had the right to lease to D and store and return construction materials supplied at the Defendant’s construction site.

Therefore, this constitutes a partial comprehensive representation right as stipulated in Article 15 of the Commercial Act, and as a representative of the defendant at the time of preparation of the lease contract of this case, H puts and seals the defendant's corporate seal in the surety column in order to enter into a guarantee contract or direct payment contract of D's obligation as a representative of the defendant.

Even if H did not have the authority to conclude the above contract of guarantee or direct payment, H had a partial comprehensive power of attorney, such as storage and return of the above construction materials. However, H had an act of sealing the Defendant’s corporate seal in the guarantor column of the instant lease agreement beyond the scope of the said comprehensive power of attorney.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not able to believe that the above contract for guarantee or direct payment was lawfully concluded. Therefore, the Defendant, who is responsible for the formation of such external appearance, is clearly named and expressed as “liability for apparent representation exceeding the authority” in the appellate court’s partial comprehensive representation right asserted by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff.