매매대금반환
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the defendant union's statements in Eul and Eul evidence 2 through 5 (including serial numbers) submitted additionally by the defendant union in the trial of the court of first instance and the testimony of witness F in the trial of the court of first instance are insufficient to admit the defendant's argument. The "Peremptory Notice" in No. 4, No. 13, and "the defendant" in No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7 shall be deemed to be "the first", and "the defendant union" in No. 2, respectively.
The part of the “determination on Defendant Union’s defense” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Supplementary Use】
B. 1) Determination on the defenses of the Defendant Union is null and void as the sales contract of this case was concluded by F, the former president of the Defendant Union, against the intent of the Union without any legitimate title.
B) According to each description of the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1, F, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “None Star Construction”)
In a lawsuit claiming additional construction costs against the Defendant Union, the fact that the Defendant Union filed a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 on the ground that it constitutes a violation of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Reasons that the Defendant Union did not raise an objection against the settlement recommendation decision of KRW 1,591,950,000 for additional construction costs is recognized.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that F has abused the power of representation in the instant sales contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, even if F is assumed to have abused the power of representation, the representative director of a stock company abused his authority for the purpose of pursuing his own or a third party's interest, regardless of the company's profit.