주권교부등 청구
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that "1. Basic Facts (the fact that there is no dispute)" in Part 2 of Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "1. Basic Facts", and that "No dispute exists" exists between the 5th and the 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul's evidence No. 1 through 4, the result of the examination of part of the defendant's representative of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings," and "106,404 shares" in Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is added as "106,404 shares", and "F" in subparagraphs 3 and 4 below as "D", and as to the argument of violation of the principle of pleading by the defendant and the defendant's intervenor, it is identical with the ground of the judgment of first instance in addition to "2. Additional judgment" in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The judgment of the court of first instance, which was made on the premise that the plaintiff did not assert that the defendant and the intervenor joining the defendant prepared the instant agreement on behalf of the plaintiff, was in violation of the principle of pleading.
B. The facts of concluding a contract by an agent belong to facts which constitute the constituent elements of substantive law that generates the legal effect, and the court cannot recognize such facts without the allegations of the parties in the pleading. However, such assertion is not necessarily required to be explicitly stated, but should be deemed to include such allegations in light of the purport of the parties’ allegations, or even if the existence of such allegations is recognized through a hearing conducted through the litigation data submitted between the parties in a lawsuit, if there is no possibility that the other party would be infinite to the other party, such assertion may be deemed to be the assertion
(See Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu15359 delivered on June 26, 1990, and Supreme Court Decision 95Da27998 delivered on February 9, 1996, etc.). However, it is against the defendant representative of the first instance court.