양수금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance is not significantly different from that in the court of first instance, and a thorough examination of the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance is recognized as legitimate.
Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, except as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial room, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court’s explanation is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence
[Additional Determination] The Plaintiff asserts that even if F did not have been authorized by the Defendant and voluntarily ordered the Plaintiff to deliver the instant commitment, the Defendant, the employer of F, is obligated to assume the responsibility for the instant commitment in accordance with the employer’s responsibility or the legal doctrine of expression agency.
The employer's liability is recognized when an employee inflicts loss on a third party in the course of performing his duties. Since the Defendant's employee written the instant undertaking to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Defendant is liable for the employer's liability with respect to F's act because it is difficult to deem that the Defendant's act was related to the performance of duties of F in charge of selling apartment constructed by the Defendant Company.
In addition, F performed the sale of the instant undertaking on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant at the site, but the content of the instant undertaking does not appear to have any ground for the Defendant to pay E to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, and it is not clear that E prepared a loan certificate related to food, and it is very exceptional to deem that the Defendant, an executor, paid the subcontractor’s debt with the loan certificate issued by the subcontractor, and it is considerably exceptional to deem that the Plaintiff had a reasonable ground to believe that F had the authority to prepare the instant undertaking on behalf of the Defendant, as well as to accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.