1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of expression representation on the following 2. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of expression representation

A. The gist of the assertion is that C, which is between the Defendant and his/her own, has obtained the Defendant’s seal imprint affixed to the joint and several surety column of the agreement on the delivery of deposit and affixed the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate.

Therefore, even if C used the Defendant’s seal imprint without the Defendant’s permission, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, had no choice but to believe that C had the right to enter into a joint and several surety contract on behalf of the Defendant. Therefore, as to the act of unauthorized Representation, the Defendant is liable for the expressive representation under Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Code

B. Determination 1) The expression agency by the indication of the granting of power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act is established when a person, regardless of the nature or validity of the basic legal relationship between the person who performed the act of representation and a third party in doing a legal act on behalf of the principal, has made an indication that the principal granted the power of representation to the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da23425, Aug. 23, 2007). Since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant granted the power of representation to the third party in executing the joint and several sureties contract, the plaintiff's assertion that the act of concluding the C's joint and several sureties contract constitutes the expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act cannot be accepted. 2) In order to establish the expression agency beyond the authority of Article 126 of the Civil Act, there is no evidence to prove that C has a fundamental authority to represent the defendant, and therefore the act of concluding the C's joint and several sureties contract constitutes the expression agency of the plaintiff.