beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was the substantial representative of the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) borrowed a total of KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff to November 5, 2014 on behalf of the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company is obligated to pay the above KRW 200 million borrowed from the Plaintiff. A family member has no legitimate authority to represent the Defendant Company.
Even if the defendant company is obligated to pay the above KRW 200 million by acting as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Code, and D, by deceiving the plaintiff, acquired the above KRW 200 million from the plaintiff. The defendant company is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred to the plaintiff in connection with the execution of the affairs of D, who is an employee, under Article 756 of the Civil Code.
In addition, Defendant C has a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of the above KRW 200 million jointly with the Defendant Company pursuant to Article 760(1) or (3) of the Civil Act, as aided and abetting the Plaintiff to defraud the above KRW 200 million by deceiving the Plaintiff, and is not so.
Even if the representative of the defendant company neglects his duties such as neglecting the act of taking advantage of D's money as the representative, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the above damages.
2. First of all, with respect to whether D borrowed money from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Company, it is not sufficient to recognize it only as a result of the response of each order to submit financial transaction information to the Bank, Han Bank, Han Bank, Korea C&T Bank, Industrial Bank of Korea, and New Bank, Co., Ltd. of this Court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on the premise that D borrowed money on behalf of the Defendant Company is acting on behalf of the Defendant Company without any need to further examine the remainder of the issue.
Now D borrowed money from the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant company without authority.