건설기계사용료
1. Defendant C’s KRW 29,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 3, 2015 to July 12, 2016.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff, at the request of defendant C, who was an employee of defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Company"), invested a string of 50 tons in the D field, on January 8, 2014, on January 9, 2014, and on January 11, 2014. On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff invested a string of 32 million tons in total, and recognized the fact that the fee was 32 million won in total.
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant Company entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company leased ckes to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company agreed to pay the rent jointly with the Defendant Company. As such, the Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 32 million, which was already paid to the Plaintiff according to the said agreement, as the lessee, and the Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of KRW 29 million.
3. Determination on Defendant Company
A. Unless it is proved that Defendant C had the authority to conclude a lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without examining the remainder of the claim.
B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company is responsible for representing the Defendant Company, but there was a fundamental power of attorney to represent the Defendant Company.
Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Company indicated the granting of the power of representation to the Plaintiff, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit.
Furthermore, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was bona fide and without fault, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is still without merit.
At the time of lease, the Plaintiff confirmed documents proving Defendant C’s power of representation, such as power of representation.
In addition, it does not seem to be the site of the defendant company as well as the data that the defendant company confirmed the authority of the defendant C, and it does not seem to be the site of the defendant company.