1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim raised at the trial.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is to be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. (1) Determination as to the main cause of counterclaim (A) In light of the fact that B had obtained a loan of insurance contract from the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s consent or approval even during the period when the Plaintiff stays in a foreign country, the Plaintiff offered his resident registration certificate to B, and the Plaintiff knew his credit card number and bank account number, etc., the Plaintiff is deemed to have indicated that the Plaintiff granted the right of representation as to each of the instant loans. Thus, each of the instant loans constitutes an expression agency.

(B) According to the statement No. 6-1 through 3 of the evidence No. 6-3, the fact-finding results and the overall purport of the argument against the head of Chuncheon Immigration Control Office and the court of this case, the plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea and subsequently entered the insurance contract loan of KRW 2,60,000 on April 11, 2013, which is the period for which the plaintiff did not exist in Korea

7. 31. 31. Recognizing the fact that the above loans were repaid in full, however, the fact that the above recognition alone was entrusted by the Plaintiff with the power to represent each of the instant loans.

In addition, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff indicated to the Defendant B the power of representation concerning the loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, even if the defendant's assertion is about the representation of expression under Article 126 of the Civil Code, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for B or third party who requested each of the loans of this case to believe that the plaintiff was the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination on the grounds of preliminary counterclaim (A) each of the instant loans asserted by the Defendant.