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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion of user liability, etc. which the plaintiff used in the court or added to this court, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts used or added;

A. (1) Grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance

2. Part of the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant, on the other hand, the Defendant granted B the Defendant’s representative D’s seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, and basic power of attorney to deliver resident registration certificates. As such, the Defendant was responsible for the Plaintiff’s expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, or the Defendant confirmed B’s act of unauthorized Representation in light of the fact that the Defendant did not raise any objection despite receipt of the instant notarial deed, decision on compulsory commencement

In addition, the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff jointly and severally with the plaintiff, since he conspiredd or aided the plaintiff to forge the loan certificate of this case and the power of attorney in this case and thereby caused damage to the plaintiff.

(2) Grounds of the first instance judgment

3.2

(1) In full view of the statements in the evidence No. 1 to No. 3 as to the judgment on the confirmation (a) of the representation representation or the confirmation (a) as to the representation representation, the court below held that B was unable to obtain the claim of KRW 24 million from D on December 2009, and recognized the fact that D’s seal impression design, certificate of personal seal impression, and resident registration certificate were issued as a defense counsel. However, according to the above facts of recognition, B was granted the basic power of representation, and there was no fact that B obtained any power of representation on behalf of the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of expression agency based on such power of representation is without merit without any further review.

(B) Judgment on the assertion of ratification by an unauthorized representation is 1 law firm.