beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) adding “the first instance” to “the witness” in the front of the 3th page 11 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) adding “the witness” in the 3th page 14 and 15 to “the short” through “the short” in the 16th page 16 of the 3rd page 14 and 15; and (c) excluding that as described in
2. Spony is insufficient.
The term "legal act with respect to daily home affairs" under Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a legal act with respect to the ordinary affairs required in the community of the married couple. The specific scope is determined not only by the social status, occupation, property, and revenue capacity of the married couple, but also by the community customs, etc. which is the place of the living of the married couple. However, in determining whether the specific legal act is a legal act with respect to daily home affairs, it does not focus on the internal situation of the married couple community which performed the legal act or on the individual purpose of the act, but also on the objective type, nature, etc. of the legal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da3129, Nov. 28, 1997). The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is difficult to identify that the borrowing act of this case by C is related to the ordinary affairs required in the community of the married couple of the plaintiff.
In addition, in order to recognize an implied ratification of an act of unauthorized representation or invalidation, there must be circumstances to fully understand the legal status that the person himself/herself was faced with the act and, even if so, to recognize that the result of the act belongs to himself/herself based on the truth. Therefore, in determining this, various relevant circumstances should be reviewed in a comprehensive manner, and the Supreme Court should be careful.