beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The defendant company which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance has become a party to the trial, and "the representative of the defendant company is an auditor on the register, but the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit by designating the former representative director of the defendant company as the representative, and thus, is unlawful" refers to the main safety defense of the
However, even if there exists a defect in the power of representation as in the principal safety defense of the defendant company, the purport of the Civil Procedure Act that treats the existence of the power of representation as a requirement for a lawsuit lies in protecting the party who has a defect in the power of representation, and the judgment favorable to the defendant company may also be ratified by the court of final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1343, Nov. 29, 1996). The judgment favorable to the defendant company may be ratified by the court of final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da513, Dec. 22, 2000). Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek a new trial against the judgment favorable to the defendant company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da513, Dec. 22, 200).
The reason for the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as the part concerning the defendant company among the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for adding the same judgment as that as described in paragraph (2) with respect to the claim for damages arising from illegal acts added in the court of the first instance.
2. Determination as to the claim for damages
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the representative director F of the Defendant Company and F had no intent or ability to repay to the Defendant Company and F, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff, which was received KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff as a loan, and thereby acquired it by fraud.
Therefore, the defendant company is liable to compensate for the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the above deception.
B. The judgment of the court of first instance as cited in paragraph 1, and the evidence No. 14-1, 2, and 3 respectively.