1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for adding the following determination as to the new argument of the Plaintiff at the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment at the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the assertion of liability by representation as stipulated in Article 125 of the Civil Act, an expression by the indication of granting of power of representation as stipulated in Article 125 of the Civil Act may be established when a person, without a direct relation, gives a third party the indication that he/she has granted the power of representation in performing a juristic act with a third party on his/her behalf without the nature of basic legal relations between the principal and the person who has performed the act by proxy, or the existence of validity thereof. Moreover, even though the indication of granting of power of representation by the principal does not necessarily require the use of the word of power of representation or the word of a representative, it may be deemed that there has been an indication of granting of power of representation in cases where he/she consented or impliedly

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da53762, Jun. 12, 1998) The Plaintiff asserts that, based on these legal principles, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under Article 125 of the Civil Act, since C borrowed money as business funds for the operation of the “D” operated by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff believed to be used for the operation of the “D” operated by the Defendant, it should be deemed that the Defendant, at least, allowed or allowed the use of the name for the act of operating the business or borrowing money necessary for the business using the name of “D” in the name of “D”.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant consented to or impliedly consented to the use of a direct box or name, etc. which can give up the right of representation to C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.