물품대금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The plaintiffs asserted as follows, and seek against the defendant the payment of each product price and damages for delay stated in the claims of the plaintiffs.
First, the defendant concluded a reduction supply contract with the plaintiffs and received a reduction of power, or granted F the right of representation to enter into a reduction supply contract to F who is an employee of the defendant.
Second, even if the F did not have the authority to conclude a reduction supply contract on behalf of the Defendant, there was justifiable reason for the Plaintiffs to believe that the Plaintiffs had the authority to conclude a reduction supply contract on behalf of the Defendant in light of the following: (a) the Defendant employed F around 2010, a prior to the instant case, and engaged in transactions with the Plaintiffs; (b) F went back and transported in a box bearing the Defendant’s trade name; and (c) stored the Defendant’s storage and storage; and (d) issued the transaction specifications indicating the Defendant’s trade name.
As such, the defendant is responsible for the expression agency pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act.
Third, the defendant is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act because F is neglected to know the fact that F is traded using the defendant's name.
2. Determination
A. As to the first argument, it is difficult for the Defendant to believe that the entry of the evidence No. 4 in the evidence No. 1 to the evidence No. 3 is consistent with the fact that the Defendant directly concluded the supply contract with the Plaintiffs and received a sense of appreciation, and it is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of the evidence No. 1 to the evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the statement of the evidence No. 1 to the evidence No. 3 alone is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was an employee of the Defendant, or the Defendant granted the
Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.
B. Second, in order to establish an expression agency in excess of the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act to determine the assertion, the basic power of representation is the person who refers to the agent.