물품대금
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 reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is that the plaintiff company's assertion of this case is insufficient to recognize as evidence that is additionally submitted in the trial of the court of first instance, and each statement of evidence Nos. 18 and 24 is rejected, and the following additional judgment is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Plaintiff Company’s assertion D or E obtained a comprehensive power of representation from the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company the price of the instant goods. Even if there was no authority to act for the Defendant Company as the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant Company indicated to D or E the Plaintiff Company the granting of the power of representation regarding the conclusion of the instant goods supply contract, and the Plaintiff Company did not believe that D or E has the power of representation. Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company the price of the instant goods in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act.
B. Under the permission of the Defendant Company, D used the name of the director of the Defendant Company and E as the field director of the Defendant Company, and the fact that the Plaintiff Company issued the instant electronic tax invoices and approved them by the Defendant Company is as seen earlier, however, D or E obtained comprehensive power of representation, including the conclusion of the instant goods supply contract, only based on the above facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff Company, from the Defendant Company.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant Company granted the Plaintiff Company the power of representation to D or E regarding the conclusion of the instant goods supply contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, so the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff company's instant case.