Main Issues

The authority and expression agency of the head of the branch office of the defendant Gap Corporation

Summary of Judgment

Although Defendant A Co., Ltd does not necessarily mean that the company with capital and organization to the extent that she is a son in Korea does not necessarily borrow money from an individual, and even such a company does not carry out such a loan in accordance with the circumstances and circumstances. Thus, even before the branch office of the above company, whether the above loan was made in the name of the company should be examined more and more whether the expression agency is established should be determined.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff, Appellant

Kim Sung-sung et al.

Defendant, Appellee

Defendant A’s taking-over Korea Electric Power Company

Judgment of the lower court

Daejeon High Court Decision 60No1641 delivered on June 15, 1961, Daejeon High Court Decision 200Da1641 delivered on June 15, 1961

Text

The original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal by the representative of the plaintiffs. The non-party's testimony by the non-party witness's testimony that the head of the branch office of the defendant company's Measures-Eup lending 5,100,000 Won to the plaintiffs for the purpose of raising the collection of the above fees, recognized that the defendant company's default electricity rate was appropriated for the defendant company, and that the defendant company's flowing water such as the defendant company obtains financing from an individual as the high change of the 10th rate per month interest per payment due to the payment due date constitutes an difficult day in light of empirical rules, and determined that it cannot be viewed as a negligence that the plaintiffs believed that such power of representation exists in Korea. However, as the decision of the court below, the court below's decision that the defendant company with capital and organization as well as the defendant company did not have the law of obtaining financing from the individual, and even if so, it is necessary to reverse the judgment below's conclusion that the defendant company did not participate in the above amendment of the Civil Procedure Act without the assent of all the court below's reasoning.