1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The judgment of this court and the judgment of the court of first instance, even if examining the allegations and the grounds that the plaintiff cited in the judgment of the court of first instance supplemented, are justifiable.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s additional argument at the court of first instance. Therefore, it is cited by the main text of

2. Additional determination

A. (1) The Defendant is liable for the apparent representative director under Article 395 of the Commercial Act with regard to the foregoing payment note, as long as H, who was in a substantial operation of the Plaintiff’s assertion D, prepares a payment note as of August 20, 2014 using the name of F, which was the representative director of D at the time.

(2) The liability of apparent representative director under Article 395 of the Commercial Act is acknowledged when a person, other than the representative director of the company, performs a transaction by using a name that is recognizable as having the power of representation in appearance. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that H used a name that is recognizable as having the power of representation in D’s president, vice president, managing director, managing director, or any other name that is recognizable as having the authority to represent the company at the time of

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion that is premised on this is without merit.

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the expressive representation liability is asserted (1) granted H a power of representation to enter into an electrical construction contract with I Co., Ltd., and H drafted a letter of payment as of August 20, 2014 in the name of D and affixed a seal imprint affixed thereto.

In light of the fact that H had concluded several construction contracts in the name of D from this point, the obligation under the letter of payment in this case includes the cost of construction materials contracted in the name of D as above, and H had the passbook in the name of D.