1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows: ① using the “D” of the first instance court No. 2, No. 2, 10 as “C”; ② The Plaintiff's assertion of emphasizing or additional assertion in the trial is identical to the part on the grounds of the first instance court's judgment, except for the additional determination as to the part on which the Plaintiff asserts emphasizing or additional assertion in the trial as set forth in the following paragraph 2.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant granted B the basic power of representation regarding the oil supply contract, such as giving a corporate seal, and the plaintiff asserted that B, on behalf of the defendant, entered into the oil supply contract on May 26, 2014 (hereinafter "the oil supply contract of this case" and "the oil supply contract of this case") or made a confirmation related thereto (hereinafter "the certificate of this case") with the power of representation to prepare the certificate of this case, and that there is a justifiable reason for reliance on such belief. Thus, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that the expressive representation of Article 126 of the Civil Act is established.

B. According to the reasoning of the entirety of the statements and arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, there is no dispute between the parties or the defendant's representative director G with respect to the takeover and transfer of business, and Eul affixed a corporate seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression to Eul, and Eul affixed the defendant's corporate seal on the oil supply contract and certificate of this case.

However, each of the statements Nos. 1 and 3 are as follows, i.e., the following circumstances, which can be known by the witness B’s testimony and the entire purport of the pleadings, i.e., the oil supply contract and the certificate of this case are not identified as the defendant’s representative, and ii) the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the oil supply contract of this case.