beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following dismissals or additions, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.Nos. 12 to 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added, shall be as follows:
2) In a case where an actor who enters into a contract of this case is a party to a contract of this case or a person who is a party to a contract of this case has done a legal act in another person’s name, the intent of the actor and the other party to the contract should first be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the actor and the other party. In a case where the intent of both parties is in accord, if the other party is reasonable, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature and purpose of the contract, the content and circumstances of the contract, etc., and the other party’s interest as the party to the contract is not always the party to the contract. This legal principle applies likewise to a case where the contractor entered into a contract of construction business license, etc. with the other party to the contract, but the contractor directly executes the construction and the construction
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 delivered on March 13, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3897 delivered on May 29, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da36656 delivered on February 10, 2006, etc.). Furthermore, as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant concluded each of the instant construction contracts, etc. as the contractor, there are 1 through 4 evidence No. 1 as evidence.
However, the seal affixed to the above evidence is based on the seal of the defendant.