beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The court's reasoning for this case is that "the plaintiff introduced X that supplied solar energy cycles to D to the defendant B" of the first to the 1st part of the 7th judgment of the first instance, "The plaintiff alleged that X, an expert, was given to the defendant B for consultation or consultation on solar energy chains, and provided cooperation in the purchase, etc.," of the 8th 12 line "85 million won", and "the plaintiff was 85,000,000 won from the defendant B" of the 9th 11 line "the 9th 11 line "the plaintiff added "the 87,000,000 won from the defendant B" to "the 87,000,000 won from the defendant B," and the plaintiff added or added the judgment under paragraph (2) below to the part of the judgment of the first instance court, and therefore it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff was authorized to prepare the instant payment note in the name of Defendant C as the actual representative or representative of Defendant C.
In addition, Defendant B’s drafting of the instant letter of payment under Defendant C’s name constitutes an act of the expressed representative director. As such, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount under the instant letter of payment.
The liability of the company for the act of the representative director under Articles 567 and 395 of the Commercial Code does not occur if the other party to the act acted in bad faith or in good faith, and the above provisions of the Commercial Code applies not only to the act of the representative director in his name, but also to the act of the representative director in his name. In this case, the other party's bad faith or gross negligence is not to the representative director's right of representation but to act on behalf of the representative director.
Supreme Court Decision 2010Da100339 Decided March 10, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10339 Decided July 11, 2013.