beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 10, No. 7, and No. 16 are written as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary note] The part used by Defendant C paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1.2 million in total as the rent from October 27, 2009 to October 26, 201. The fact that Defendant C deposited KRW 600,000 from October 27, 2011 to October 26, 2012 as to the land No. 133 of this case’s 1 and 2, and that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 13,14,21, 15-1 and 2 from October 26, 2012 to October 26, 2012, each of the following facts were established at the general meeting of the Plaintiff’s audit and inspection. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s revenue and expenditure statement on the payment of rent under the above lease agreement, the audit and inspection report, etc., and the fact that each of the Plaintiff’s report was made by the general meeting of the Plaintiff for 201.
However, the ratification of an unauthorized representation act is a single act with knowledge of the act of unauthorized representation and the effect of the act is not required to vest in the person in question, and it does not require a certain method with regard to the method of expressing his/her intent explicitly or implicitly. However, in order for implied ratification, there must be circumstances to deem that the person in question fully understand the legal status of the act in question and that the result of the act in question belongs to him/her on the basis of his/her intention, and therefore, it should be carefully examined various relevant circumstances in determining this.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). In order for the Plaintiff to have ratified each of the instant lease agreements according to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff each of the instant agreements.