logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.29 2015가단52938
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase and sale promise (hereinafter “instant purchase promise”) with the representative director E, a company D, which represented the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, with respect to the said C712 square meters of land containing 217 square meters of road portion; and (b) on November 4, 2011, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to complete the purchase and sale promise of the instant land pursuant to the instant purchase and sale promise reaches the Defendant’s agent E representative director, the Defendant is obligated to implement the ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to the instant land on the grounds of sale on November 4, 201.

B. (1) Determination is generally a matter of interpretation of the intent of a party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document, regardless of the internal intent of the parties, even though it is not attached to the phrase used in the document. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be acknowledged as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010). Meanwhile, when an agent performs an act on behalf of the principal, he/she and his/her agent are indicated pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, if an agent performs an act without the name of his/her agent relationship, the principal is not effective, but the so-called name indicating that he/she is acting on behalf of the principal does not necessarily need to be explicitly stated.

arrow