The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the case where the plaintiff's grounds for appeal are determined additionally as follows 2.1. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) Although the defendant recognized that the seal affixed on the certificate of employment at the date of pleading of the first instance is suitable for the defendant's employee, the court of first instance that denied the authenticity of the certificate of employment and rejected the plaintiff's assertion of the representative of expression is inappropriate. 2) The defendant lent a license to D and entered into a labor supply contract with the plaintiff in the name of the defendant, and thus, the defendant bears the responsibility of the nominal lender under

B. Determination 1) As to the assertion of representation, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant stated that the stamp image affixed on the certificate is the same as the Defendant’s employee seal impression at the date of pleading of the first instance trial. Furthermore, even if the stamp image affixed on the certificate is used by the Defendant’s employee seal impression, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, D may recognize the Defendant’s employee seal impression in order to affix a seal on the documents related to construction works to be submitted to the competent authority, and accordingly obtain criminal punishment due to the forgery of a certificate of employment or a labor supply contract, and accordingly, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have granted D with any basic power of attorney regarding legal acts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. Accordingly, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s assertion of liability for the nominal lender’s act is sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant permitted D to use the Defendant’s trade name.