1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the "case subject to the judgment" in Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the subject of this case" and the following Paragraph 2 is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "decisions on the abuse and cancellation of the defendant's right of representation" to "decision on the defendant's assertion of abuse and cancellation of his right of representation". Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of

As to the Defendant’s assertion of abuse of power of representation against the Defendant’s assertion of abuse of power of representation, the Defendant concluded this case’s agreement on behalf of the Defendant and its incidental execution agreement.

Even if there is no benefit to the defendant, but the defendant gives only benefit to the deceased or the plaintiff, which constitutes an abuse of the deceased's power of representation and thus null and void.

However, the instant agreement A.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff stipulates that the right to collateral security should be established in the future on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff with respect to the instant loan, etc., the instant agreement cannot be deemed an unilateral agreement unfavorable to the Defendant without any benefit.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the signing of the instant agreement by the deceased constitutes an abuse of power of representation.

We do not accept the defendant's assertion on a different premise.

B. The judgment of the Defendant on the claim for rescission is to conclude the instant agreement from September 2017 to September 2017.

Since the contract under the instant agreement was rescinded by reason of the non-performance of the obligation to pay interest on the loans set forth in the subsection, the non-execution agreement asserts that the non-execution agreement has become null and void.

The following circumstances are revealed according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 27 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On June 2017, the defendant applied for compulsory execution against the real estate owned by the plaintiff as the executive title of the judgment of this case to Suwon District Court I.