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. Basic facts

A. On July 4, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5 million to C Bank passbook under the name of the Defendant, KRW 5 million on December 27, 2007, and KRW 10 million on July 15, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff received a monthly amount of money from the Defendant’s account to the name of interest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff as a broker of the Defendant’s attached D is the lending of KRW 20 million with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lending”).

(2) The defendant, as a party to a contract, has the duty to pay the loan of this case to the plaintiff as a party to the contract. (3) Even if the defendant did not conclude the contract of this case as a party to the loan of this case, the defendant granted the right of representation for the loan of this case to use his passbook to D, and D concluded the loan of this case on behalf of the defendant. The defendant must pay the loan of this case to the plaintiff.

3) Even in cases where the conclusion of the instant lending contract by Nr. D is in excess of the power of representation, the Defendant shall be held liable to the Plaintiff according to the legal doctrine of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act. 4) Even if the above expressive agent liability is not established, the Defendant lived with D, and did not raise any objection to the Plaintiff for ten years with the knowledge of the above details of transactions, and the Defendant may be deemed to have ratified D’s act of unauthorized Representation. Thus, the Defendant is liable for D’s act.

B. First, as to whether the Defendant is a party to the above monetary loan contract, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan to the account under the name of the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff was paid interest through the account under the name of the Defendant, and that it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff immediately lent the loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.