용역대금
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company whose business objective is the detection of water leakage, etc., and the Defendant, which is a company for the business of installing machinery and equipment facilities, etc., was subcontracted with the construction of machinery and equipment and fire fighting works among the extension works of D churches in Echeon-si, Leecheon-si, around November 2018.
B. On June 20, 2019, the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant’s “former Vice President”, to detect water leakage and restore the cause of heating pipes installed at the construction site of the said extension (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant’s “former Vice President”), and inspected the above heating pipes, etc. for two days until June 21, 2019, and completed construction to detect and recover the defects.
On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiff agreed with the above E as KRW 6,000,000 for the instant construction cost (excluding value-added tax).
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) The Plaintiff is a party to the instant construction contract, and even if it is not a party to the construction contract, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 395 of the Commercial Act that provides for the company’s liability for the act of the apparent
(2) The defendant is not a party to the instant construction contract.
E used the name of the vice president of the Defendant at the time of the instant construction contract.
Even if the defendant did not permit it, the defendant does not assume the responsibility under Article 395 of the Commercial Act for the act of E.
B. (1) As to the act of a director who has used a name that can be recognized as having authority to represent the company, Article 395 of the Commercial Act provides that the company shall be held liable against a third party acting in good faith, even if the director has no authority to represent the company, but the company shall be held liable for the act of a director who has used a name that can be recognized as having authority to represent the company.