1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B stated that “The Defendant shall pay the proceeds if he lends the name in the auction procedure,” and that the Defendant has given B a certificate of the personal seal impression and a driver’s license.

B. On June 5, 2013, B prepared an application for a loan under the name of the Defendant using the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression and driver’s license, and received from the Plaintiff KRW 27.4 million from the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). 【The ground for recognition” does not have any dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff, while the defendant comprehensively delegated the right of representation to B to obtain profits through an act of profit and disposal under the civil law, and since B entered into a loan agreement on behalf of the defendant, the defendant is obligated to repay the loan of this case. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant granted the right of representation as to the loan of this case to B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's right of representation is without merit.

B. In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant performed part of the loan and ratified B's unauthorized Representation by expressing his/her intent to repay the debt, so it can be acknowledged that the installment was deposited three times, but the above fact of recognition alone cannot be recognized that the defendant paid the above installment. ② The statement of evidence No. 10 is insufficient to recognize that the defendant expressed his/her intent to repay the debt to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of ratification is without merit.

C. Next, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was obligated to repay the instant loan in accordance with the apparent representation liability under Article 126 of the Civil Act, since the Defendant conferred the fundamental power of representation on auction to B.