1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All the Plaintiff’s claims (including the conjunctive claims added by this court).

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd issued a check number F, face value 20 million won, issuance date on January 25, 2018, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City of the place of issuance, and the payment place G, etc. G, with the number of shares per bearer (hereinafter “the check in this case”).

B. The back of the check of this case is written as a short endorsement in blank, D Co., Ltd. as a first endorsement, and E Co., Ltd. as a third endorsement.

In addition, as to the second endorsement, I, the husband of the Defendant’s representative director H, has affixed the Defendant’s name and signed the Defendant’s name “B I”. C. The Plaintiff presented the instant check on January 25, 2018 as the final holder of the instant check, but was refused to pay the check on the ground of non-transaction. The Plaintiff was denied payment on the ground that there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the final holder of the instant check, the fact that there was no ground for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment as to the main claim (as to the assertion of the right of representation or the expression as the representative)

A. The summary of the cause of the claim is that the defendant representative director H’s husband is the actual representative of the defendant, and his endorsement on the check of this case is valid as an act of representation or power of representation.

Even if so, I had the basic right of representation as the husband of the defendant representative director, and when making an endorsement on the check of this case, I marked that it is an act on behalf of the defendant (in addition, even if I stated that it is an act on behalf of the defendant, that is, an act on behalf of the defendant, since it is a commercial activity, it is argued that it is an act on behalf of the defendant, since it is a commercial activity, it is a commercial activity, so the so-called non-realism is applied). And, E, a endorse, has a justifiable reason to believe that he has the right of representation or the right of representation. Thus, there is an expression agent under Article 12

Therefore, the Defendant, as the endorser of the instant check, has lawfully acquired the right to the check by the series of endorsements.