손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and such reasoning is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following is dismissed or the defendant added to the contents claimed in the court of first instance.
(except for the portion as to separate or finalized B). 2. Parts dried or added
A. 1) Part 5 of the first instance judgment “Plaintiffs” is deemed to be “Plaintiffs”. 2) The sixth seven pages 7 of the first instance judgment “from May 16, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case,” and “from March 17, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case,” and “from July 16, 2016,” respectively, are deemed to be “from May 17, 2016,” respectively.
B. Further determination 1) The Defendant’s assertion B had the authority to conclude a lease contract on behalf of C with respect to the instant housing. Even if B did not have the authority to conclude a lease contract, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff could receive a refund of the lease deposit from C, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff incurred loss to the Plaintiff. (A) First, the fact that B delegated only the authority to conclude a monthly rent contract with respect to the instant housing by C is as seen earlier, and thus, the Defendant’s argument on a different premise is rejected without need to further examine, and then, whether the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is constituted.
B was granted the authority to conclude a monthly rent contract for the instant housing by Section C, and as seen earlier, the fact that B entered into a monthly rent contract for the instant housing between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, however, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to believe that B had the authority to conclude a monthly rent contract.
Rather, whether the Plaintiff was authorized to conclude the lease contract between B and C at the time of the above lease contract.