beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The defendant's assertion in the trial of acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even after closely examining the defendant's assertion in the trial of first instance and the evidence
Therefore, the court's reasoning of this case is as follows: ① it is difficult to believe that the 5th 19th 5th 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance stated "after being entrusted with the disposal of a motor vehicle by a motor vehicle owner in relation to another motor vehicle sales contract prior to the sales contract of this case, as stated in the evidence No. 8, F was involved in the sale of the motor vehicle and then the motor vehicle owner was entrusted with the disposal of the motor vehicle before the sales contract of this case and entered into the automobile sales contract as a direct seller, etc., and ② it is reasonable to deem that the 6th 4th th th th
' Furthermore, since there are many cases where the defendant entrusted the sale of a motor vehicle and did not issue a power of attorney or a certificate of personal seal impression for the seller from the beginning, even if F did not receive the above documents from the plaintiff or D, this is essential to consider in determining whether to grant the power of attorney or disposition.
However, in case where a juristic act is done on behalf of another person on behalf of another person, it can be proved whether the power of representation can be granted through the power of attorney or a document proving the power of disposition. Nevertheless, it can be said that a person who performs a juristic act on behalf of another person or by being the other party has taken disadvantage due to the absence of the power of representation. In particular, the Plaintiff did not act on behalf of the other party on behalf of the other party and did not take disadvantage due to the absence of power of representation.