The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined as follows: (a) although it was possible for the Plaintiff to have known that the Plaintiff’s act was not legitimate within his/her official authority if he/she had exercised due diligence, the lower court, as soon as he/she did not have due care to a significant violation of the duty of care required of the general public by believing that it was an act within his/her official authority; and

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the victim's gross negligence.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to have started trading with A due to negligence in managing the Defendant’s employees and corporate name plates, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation as alleged in

3. 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 on the bench.