(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.10.08 2020나103915

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.10.08 2020나103915

보증금반환

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) Defendant C Co-Defendant C of the first instance court (“Defendant C”) of the first instance court (“C”; (b) Defendant C of the third part of the first instance judgment “C”; and (c) Defendant C of the first instance court “Defendant C of the third part of the third part of the first instance judgment”; and (c) Defendant C of the “Defendant C of the fourth part of the third part of the first instance judgment”; and (d) Defendant C of the “Defendant C of the fourth part of the fourth part of the fourth part of the first instance judgment”; and (e) Defendant C of the 17 evidence “B of the third part of the fourth part of the first instance judgment” of the 18 evidence of the 17th part of the 13th part of the 4th part

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement with E, a corporation duly represented by the Defendant, and subsequently concluded the instant extension contract with C, which extends the term of lease of the instant lease agreement. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease agreement and the instant extension contract are effective to the Defendant.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that, on behalf of the Defendant, E is not entitled to enter into the instant real estate lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant, and that there was no fact that the Defendant granted any power of representation to C other than E, and that the conclusion of the instant lease agreement and the instant extension agreement between E and C between E is invalid as an act of unauthorized representation. 2) We examine whether E has a legitimate authority to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate on behalf of the Defendant.

The following circumstances that can be recognized by the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, namely, ① the content of the business entrusted by E in the instant business consignment agreement by the Defendant is written as “all of the leased business affairs,” and any restrictions are placed on the scope of the business affairs.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.11.29 2017가단32677

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가합508028

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.01.17 2017가단4273

-인천지방법원 2015.08.25 2013가단99965

-서울서부지방법원 2014.11.19 2013가단39042