1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the defendant's new arguments at the trial of the court of first instance under section 5, 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that since D’s additional determination is an act as an expression representative director under Article 395 of the Commercial Act or an expression representative under Article 126 of the Civil Act with respect to the plaintiff, since D’s seal impression is affixed to the Promissory Notes and power of attorney and the plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal is issued to entrust the defendant with the preparation of the certificate of official nature of this case, the above act of D’s act is effective against the plaintiff.

Only on the basis of the descriptions of No. 8, No. 4-1, No. 4-6-1, and No. 6-9, it is insufficient to recognize that D affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression with the Promissory Notes and the power of attorney and delivered the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.