beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 100 million on January 8, 2015 and KRW 100 million on January 9, 2015 to the account under the name of the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff, first of all, concluded a monetary loan loan contract with the defendant's wife who representing the defendant, and then remitted KRW 100 million to the loan. Thus, the defendant is obligated to repay the loan to the plaintiff, and the defendant is also obligated to pay the loan to the plaintiff, and the expression agent, which is called that the family C did not have the right to represent the defendant, has the right to represent the defendant as the basic right of representation, and therefore the defendant
First, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant granted C the right of representation to borrow KRW 100 million from the plaintiff, and this part of the assertion based on this premise is without merit.
Next, in order to claim the effect of an expression agent in excess of the authority stipulated in Article 126 of the Civil Act as to the plaintiff's assertion of expression agent, it is required that the other party believe that he/she has the right of representation and has justifiable grounds to believe that he/she has the right of representation in cases where the person does an act other than his/her authority with the intention of representation clearly or implicitly, or performs an act other than his/her authority with the intention of representation. The existence of justifiable grounds here should be objectively observed and determined in all the circumstances existing
In light of the fact that the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate in this case and did not take measures such as confirming the intent of loan or confirming the power of attorney at the time of borrowing, etc., it is difficult to deem that C has justifiable grounds for believing that the Plaintiff has the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
(b).