1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from September 23, 2010 to July 22, 2015, and the following.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,00 to the Defendant for a fixed period of six months. However, as the Defendant did not repay it, the Plaintiff sought payment. 2) Even if the Defendant did not directly borrow it, the Plaintiff believed that C had the authority to borrow money under the name of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant because C had a loan certificate, a certificate of personal seal impression, an identification card, and a certificate of employment with the Defendant’s seal imprint affixed, and thus, the Plaintiff was established as an expressive agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act, as there is a justifiable reason to believe that C had the authority to borrow money.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for the repayment of the above loan.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant had the right of representation as to the conclusion, etc. of the Defendant’s lease contract, and for that reason, the Plaintiff was aware that it was not always holding the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression, etc., and thus, it appears that it should have verified whether it was directly borrowed from the Defendant in addition to the document verification at the time of the lease of this case. Unless it is confirmed at all, there was gross negligence in believing that C had the

Therefore, the defendant is not liable for the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Code.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the existence of a direct loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the direct loan assertion, there is no dispute between the parties that the following stamp image after the defendant's name stated in Gap No. 2 (the tea certificate) will be affixed with the defendant's seal. Meanwhile, according to the statement in Gap No. 7, it is recognized that Eul affixed the defendant's seal on the defendant's name on the above loan certificate, and there is no evidence to prove that Eul was the right to affix the defendant's seal to Eul. Thus, the above evidence No. 2 cannot be used as evidence, and otherwise, the fact that the above loan agreement was concluded.