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: (a) the Defendant’s 5th 14th 5th 14th son of the judgment of the court of first instance cited “non-performance” as “non-performance; and (b) the Defendant’s new disputed part as the grounds for appeal is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the newly disputed part as the grounds for

2. Judgment on the defendant's grounds for appeal

A. (1) Even though the formation of the apparent representation liability does not require A to take part in the process as the Plaintiff’s representative, A is a person who had the basic power of attorney to entrust the storage of the instant school clinic, to delegate customs clearance, and to take part of the school school clinic (10,000) to the Defendant beyond the scope of his/her authority, and requested A to take part in the process of the school curriculum beyond the scope of his/her authority, and the Defendant believed A to have the authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable for the expressive representation pursuant to Article 126 of

(2) It cannot be deemed that the obligation to return was impossible even if the Defendant cut off the instant school class since it does not constitute an impossible performance.

(3) The calculation of the amount of damages is unlawful, and the Defendant was in possession of the remaining shares at the time of inventory, and thus, it is unlawful to determine the amount of 3,450 won, which is the market price at the time of import.

B. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff entrusted A with the custody of the instant school clinic, delegated customs clearance services, and granted the basic power of attorney on the shipment of part of the school clinic (10,000), there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the first argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the testimony of the witness A of the court below, A only played the role of introducing the defendant to the plaintiff.