Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant Company that runs the business of importing, manufacturing, and selling fertilizers.

On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff and Nonparty D entered into an underwriting agreement with a corporation.

The content is that the plaintiff transfers the defendant company to D, and D will pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated as KRW 500 per 1 pool for the fertilizer that is released each month to the plaintiff in return.

After that, in fact D had taken office as the representative of the Defendant Company and operated the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff money under the aforesaid contract for underwriting the said corporation from January 2014 to June 2017, but did not pay thereafter.

The Plaintiff claimed the payment of KRW 100 million, among the money that Defendant Company did not pay from July 2017.

B. (1) Even if based on the statement in the contract for acquisition of the corporation (No. 2) of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the principal agent who pays to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 500 per fertilizer 50 won per share in return for acquisition by the company is not the Defendant Company, but D.

The defendant company is only the object of both water supply.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff actually paid the amount calculated at the rate of 500 won per fertilizer to the Plaintiff from January 2014 to June 2017 by the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company ratified D’s act of acting as an agent without the authority.

The argument is asserted.

As seen earlier, since a person who bears the obligation to pay money as stated in the contract for acquisition of a corporation is D, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Company impliedly accepted the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay money against the Plaintiff, and based on the evidence No. 3, the Defendant Company may recognize that the money was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account from January 2014 to several times. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said money was paid in accordance with the contract for acquisition of the Plaintiff’s company’s claim, and even if so, the said money was paid to the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant Company.