The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have delegated the authority to comprehensively dispose of the instant motor vehicle to B, and that the third party C, D, and the Defendant knew or could have known that there was no authority to comprehensively dispose of the instant motor vehicle and to borrow money to B, and that there was no reasonable ground to believe that B had such authority.

The Defendant rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the act of disposal either B or B constitutes an expression agent under Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Act, and determined that the Defendant was obliged to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff by deeming that the Defendant occupied the instant automobile without any authority.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on expressive representation under Articles 1

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.