2018Na301471 Compensation

500

Ansan-si

Law Firm Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for Lee Jae-ho

Attorney Kim Byung-jin

○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd.

Incheon

one representative director

Law Firm Cho & Lee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Kadan22530 Decided January 10, 2018

June 26, 2019

July 10, 2019

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,850,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 14, 2018 to July 10, 2019, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 9/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant paid to the plaintiff 24,00,131 won and 15% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff claimed damages from Eargue pipe water in the first instance trial, but the plaintiff changed the claim for the defect repair cost of Eargue pipe itself in the first instance trial, but the claim was not reduced accordingly).

1. Basic facts

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination on this safety defense

The reasoning of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the 9th to the 4th 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g.

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the cost of repairing the defects of air-conditioner pipes, which occurred on behalf of the Defendant, because the ○○○ Kim, prepared the instant confirmation to repair the defects of air-conditioner pipelines on behalf of the Defendant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to perform the repair works even though the Plaintiff requested several times of the repair works.

Even if Kim 00, who prepared the letter of confirmation of this case, did not have the authority to act on behalf of the defendant, the defendant indicated that he granted his authority to repair defects, etc. to Kim O, or the plaintiff believed that Kim ○ has the authority to prepare the letter of this case on behalf of the defendant in connection with the repair of defects and there was a justifiable reason to believe as such, so the defendant is liable to act on behalf of the defendant under Article 125 or 126

2) The defendant's assertion

The confirmation of this case was prepared by Kim○-○ individually, and the defendant did not grant the power of representation to Kim○-○ in relation to the preparation of the confirmation of this case, so the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the defect repair expenses to the plaintiff.

C. Determination on whether the defendant's obligation to repair defects occurred

1) On April 26, 2016, the fact that the Defendant Southern Southern Center Kim ○○, a person in charge of defect repair, prepared and issued the instant written confirmation to the Plaintiff that he/she would perform the defect repair of the leakages of air conditioners buried in the inner wall of the ward.

2) First of all, in preparing the instant confirmation document, it is insufficient to recognize the above power of representation only with respect to whether Kim ○ has the authority to represent the Defendant in preparing the instant confirmation document, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3) Next, we examine the assertion of apparent representation.

In order to claim the effect of an expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, a person who currently holds the right of representation is established when he/she has exceeded his/her authority, so the fundamental right of representation shall exist at the time of a juristic act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74713, Jan. 31, 2008). In order to claim the effect of such expression representation, where an agent expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intent to act for himself/herself or performs an act other than his/her authority with his/her intention, the other party is believed to have the right of representation, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has the right of representation. The existence of such legitimate reason must be determined by objectively observing and observing all the circumstances existing at the time of the act of acting by an agent by a name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da9961

In light of the above legal principles, Kim ○ may recognize the fact that the defendant company was an employee of the defendant company and was in charge of the defect repair-related business of the apartment complex of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant Kim ○ has a basic authority to conduct the defect repair-related business of the apartment complex of this case on behalf of the defendant. Furthermore, the following circumstances are revealed after considering the overall purport of the arguments: ① the defendant notified the defendant that he would visit the site as a response to the plaintiff's defect repair request; ② the Kim 00 visited the plaintiff's house, and ② it is difficult to accept that the plaintiff was in charge of the defect repair-related business of the apartment of this case; ③ The plaintiff is not obliged to prepare a confirmation document as to the defect repair-related business of the apartment of this case on behalf of the defendant company of this case on behalf of the defendant 3, 8, 10, 19 (including paper numbers), 3, and 6, and so, the defendant did not have a legitimate authority to conduct the defect repair confirmation as well as the defendant Kim 200.

C. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion on the completion of defect repair obligation

1) As to this, the Defendant asserts that even though the validity of the instant written confirmation extends to the Defendant, the Kim○ has already been harmed by the air-conditioning pipe construction, and thus, the Defendant completed the defect repair obligation under the instant written confirmation.

2) Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly and conclusively identifying the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating the juristic act, and where the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the contract document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da25809, Jun. 22, 201

3) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensive consideration of the respective entries and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 8, 10, 17, 18, 22, and 23 (including paper numbers), namely, ① the apartment of this case is a structure where air conditioner pipelines are buried on the wall and floor, ② the plaintiff continuously discussed the repair of water leakage of air conditioner pipes with the defendant's South-North Branch Center Kim00, but the scope and schedule of the official defect repair work were not determined properly, ③ the plaintiff's employees' office ○○ et al. urged the repair work of the apartment of this case to visit the apartment of this case and use air conditioner, but it appears as temporary measures. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the above construction work of the apartment of this case was completed by itself, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

D. Determination on the scope of damages in lieu of defect repair

1) As a result of an appraiser’s appraisal, unless the method of appraisal is against the empirical rule or unreasonable, etc., the appraiser’s appraisal should be respected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009).

2) According to the results of each supplementary appraisal of the professional engineer office of this court against 00, an on-site investigation and design drawings, etc., the above appraiser has a duty to pay 18,50,000 won to the plaintiff as compensation for damages in lieu of defect repair stipulated in the certificate of this case, in consideration of the circumstances that, after reviewing the field investigation, design drawings, etc., the above appraiser has been settled in the parts of the structural parts, and that it is practically difficult to re-establish the pipes again due to damage to the structure, and that the method of connecting the pipes to the first floor is adequate, and that the method of connecting the pipes to the excellent pipes is calculated as 18,50,000 won.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 14, 2018, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to July 10, 2019, which is the date of the judgment of the court of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with a different conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted, and it is modified as per the judgment of the court of

The presiding judge, deputy judge

Judge Foreather

Judges Kim Gin-ok