대여금
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination as to loan claims
A. On February 8, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to C who represented the Defendant, setting the due date as February 17, 2011.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amounting to KRW 500 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.
Even if C did not have the authority to represent the Defendant, C’s act of borrowing KRW 500 million from the Plaintiff is an expression agent pursuant to Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant, the principal of such expression agent, is liable to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 500 million and the damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8-1, Eul's assertion that the act of borrowing money by Eul is an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant gave the right of representation to the plaintiff, on or around February 8, 2011, and delivered a promissory note with a face value of 2 billion won which the defendant appointed in succession. The plaintiff may lend the said promissory note to Eul as security. However, the above fact alone is insufficient to recognize that Eul borrowed the above KRW 500 million from the plaintiff as the defendant's representative, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that Eul was authorized to borrow money on behalf of the defendant is without merit. 2) The plaintiff asserted that the act of borrowing money by Eul is an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act. However, the fact that a promissory note endorsed by the defendant is delivered to the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been presented to the plaintiff.
3. In addition, although the Plaintiff asserts that C’s act of borrowing is an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff has the basic power of representation against C solely on the fact that C delivers a promissory note endorsed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
(b).