1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the Plaintiff’s new argument at the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the borrower of the instant loan Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant loan”), and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 70,000,000 and delay damages for the following reasons:

(1) Since the Defendant’s implied power of representation or the Defendant’s daily agent borrowed money at the time of the instant loan, it should be deemed that he/she implicitly granted the right of representation as to the conclusion of the said loan for consumption to D or E.

Even if the defendant did not grant the right of representation, the loan of this case is about daily home affairs, so at least the defendant's wife E has the right of representation for the defendant.

(2) The defendant, through E at the time of the first lending of this case, borrowed money through E, and thereafter repeated the act of making the second lending of this case through E and paying its interest. Since the defendant can be deemed to have expressed his intention to grant the right of representation to the plaintiff, the defendant is responsible for the expression agent.

(3) Even if the plaintiff's ratification of D or E's unauthorized Representation did not grant the right of representation to D or E, the defendant continued to pay the interest to the plaintiff by using the account in the name of E after the loan of this case, so D or E's unauthorized Representation.