beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.09.02 2019나65023

기타(금전)

Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a service contract providing unmanned machine security services and ice beauty services within the “E Articles of Incorporation” with D and the Defendant operating C with the power of representation granted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

However, following the Defendant’s default of fees, the Plaintiff terminated the instant contract based on the terms and conditions, and sought payment of the unpaid monthly payment of KRW 990,00,000, penalty of KRW 2,340,000, installation cost of KRW 5,200,000, and removal cost of KRW 700,000, in total, and KRW 9,230,000.

B. The defendant's argument E articles of incorporation was operated by F, and D is an employee of F.

There is no fact that the defendant granted the right of representation to D, and there is no fact that the defendant did not know about the representative affixed on the contract and affixed it directly by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is not a party to the contract of this case.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was a party to the instant contract and submitted as evidence a written contract (No. A. 1; hereinafter “instant contract”).

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the instant contract, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

- The instant contract is written as “C(B)” and C’s seal is affixed, but C is not a juristic person, and there is no registered corporate seal impression, etc., and the defendant is not aware of the above representative, and it cannot be said that the above representative is a seal representing the defendant.

- The plaintiff himself prepared the contract of this case with D who is not the defendant.

Therefore, the contract of this case cannot be used as evidence, and the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, which the defendant granted the power of representation to D.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is a party to the instant contract.