매매대금
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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "B" between the plaintiff's husband G and the plaintiff's husband who represented for the plaintiff on June 2, 2009, "B", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P", "P" and "P" (hereinafter referred to as "P", "P", and "P", are as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2 and 19", "P" and "P" (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); Presidential Decree No. 21358, Jun. 2, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 220144, Jun. 2, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 220140, Feb. 2, 2009>
The witness F of the first instance trial of “B” testified to the effect that “G would have expressed to the Defendant that he would reduce the KRW 30 million out of the transfer price of the instant business after the conclusion of the instant contract,” is insufficient to recognize that G was entrusted by the Plaintiff with the authority to reduce the KRW 30 million out of the transfer price of the instant business, on the sole basis of the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 14, and the testimony of the said F, it is insufficient to recognize that G was delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to reduce the KRW 30 million out of the transfer price of the instant business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the said reduction agreement of G is invalid against the Plaintiff.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following judgments to Chapter 3, 3, 3, 19, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 19
As to the additional determination, even if G did not have the authority to reduce the transfer price of the business of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, G had the basic authority to conclude the instant transfer contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant had justifiable grounds to believe that G had the authority to reduce the above reduction. As such, G did not have the authority to do so.