beta
Text
1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim filed by this court are dismissed, respectively.
2. Appeal;
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is to dismiss the “assumptive” of the fifth and seventh acts of the court of first instance, and as to the conjunctive assertion added by the defendant in the trial, the following paragraph (2) is added, and as to the counterclaim raised by the defendant in the trial of first instance, the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following Paragraph (3).
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s conjunctive assertion as to the main claim
A. Even if the Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant’s joint Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) did not actually conclude a lease on a deposit basis between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff received notice of the transfer of the lease on a deposit basis against the Defendant on October 20, 2015, but did not raise any objection to B or the Defendant, and rather, B used the loan borrowed from the Defendant for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s obligation, and subsequently ratified the lease on a deposit basis.
B. The ratification of the act of unauthorized representation or the act of invalidation is a single act with knowledge of the act of unauthorized representation and the effect of the act is to vest in the person in question, and it does not require a certain method as to the method of expression of intent, explicitly or implicitly. However, in order to recognize implied ratification, there must be circumstances to recognize that the person in question sufficiently understand the legal status of the act in question and, even if it is possible to recognize implied ratification, the result of the act in question belongs to the person in question. Therefore, in determining this, it should be careful by comprehensively examining various relevant circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009). Although the Plaintiff received a notice of assignment of claims to the Defendant that the Plaintiff transferred the claim for the return of the deposit money under the loan of this case to the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against B or the Defendant.
or B.