(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.15 2016나7753 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.15 2016나7753

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① entered into a sales contract for scrap metal for the construction site in C (hereinafter “instant contract”) with B who represented the Defendant, and the Defendant received delivery of scrap metal at the above construction site. As such, the Defendant, as a party to the instant contract, is obligated to pay the purchase price under the instant contract to the Plaintiff as a party to the instant contract.

② Even if Non-existence Party B was delegated with the authority to conclude the instant contract by the Defendant or granted the power of representation, in light of the fact that Party B was holding the name plate and seal in the name of the Defendant at the time of the instant contract, and that Party B was acting as an agent for the Defendant, etc., the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that Party B was entitled to conclude the instant contract on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable to act as an expressive agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act as to the instant contract.

③ Since the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant confirmed the act of unauthorized representation B pursuant to the reduction and delivery of all scrap metal at the construction site pursuant to the instant contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the purchase price under the instant contract to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is only a name plate and seal under the name of the Defendant in relation to the conclusion of the contract with the new ethyl Co., Ltd. to which B belongs, and there was no power to represent the conclusion of the contract with the Plaintiff. Access to the construction site in relation to the instant contract is limited to a sales contract with B, and the Defendant paid the purchase price for scrap metal to B, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay the purchase price for the instant contract to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition Gap evidence No. 1, the following facts are acknowledged between the plaintiff and Eul.

Estimated Conditions

1. On-site: GS Construction C (three units) 2.

참조조문

-민법 제126조

유사 판례

-청주지방법원충주지원 2015.01.15 2013가합1976

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.08.12 2015가합24

-수원지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가단34504

-의정부지방법원 2019.03.05 2017가단17689

-서울동부지방법원 2016.09.07 2014가합111328