2016 Fees for the use of 2016 Ghana3437

A person shall be appointed.

B Stock Company

October 6, 2016

December 1, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall complete the payment to the plaintiff of KRW 3,960,00 and the service of a copy of the complaint of this case

By the day, 15% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The defendant is a company with the purpose of an engineering work business, etc. ; 2) C requested the defendant to create a name to enable the defendant to carry on his business on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant created C to name C as the defendant's executive director. 3) C around April 2016, when the defendant completes his work at the bridge construction site located in Gyeonggi-gun D D, which the defendant works for the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, and the plaintiff puts Pocle (6W) into the plaintiff on April 19, 2016.

4. From April 19, 2016 to April 24, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,600,000,000 per day as user fee for equipment on the surface of the construction sea zone, and accordingly, the Plaintiff used a bridge from April 19, 2016 to April 24, 2016 to fill up a bridge apartment by using a bridge at the same construction site.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence 2, Gap’s evidence 3-1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff through C, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 3.6 million to the Plaintiff ( = 3.6 million + value-added tax of KRW 3.6 million) and damages for delay.

C. Determination

C As to whether the Plaintiff had the power of representation to conclude a contract for construction works on behalf of the Defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of representation is without merit.

However, if the plaintiff's assertion is asserted, it seems that the assertion is included in the expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Code, so it will be decided whether it is appropriate.

The expression agency by the indication of the granting of power of representation as prescribed in Article 125 of the Civil Act may be established when a person, without a direct relation, has indicated that he has granted the power of representation to a third party in performing a juristic act with a third party on behalf of the principal who has performed the act on behalf of the principal. In addition, the indication of granting of power of representation by the principal does not necessarily have to use the word of power of representation or as a representative, but rather it can be deemed that there has been an indication of granting of power of representation even if he has consented or impliedly consented to the use of a direct box or name, etc. which may conceal the power of representation by social norms (Supreme Court Decision 97Da53762 delivered on June 12, 1998).

The fact that the defendant made the name of Eul to Eul as the defendant's executive director at the request of Eul is as shown above. Thus, the defendant expressed to the general third party the power of representation regarding the conclusion, etc. of construction contract to the general third party.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, C’s legal effect of the construction contract entered into with the Plaintiff is attributed to the Defendant pursuant to the main sentence of Article 125 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 39.60,00

2. Judgment on the defense

A. Defendant’s defense

The plaintiff is negligent in leasing equipment to C without confirming the defendant.

B. Determination

In order to revert the direct effect of the act of representation to the principal as an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act, not only is it bona fide as to the fact that a third party, who is the other party to the act of representation, actually does not have the power of representation, but also it is obvious in the proviso of the same Article (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da72233 Decided April 30, 201).

According to the statements in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1, the order issued by Eul to the plaintiff is not only the defendant's trade name but also the defendant's telephone number "F," which is the defendant's telephone number, "It is recognized that the above telephone number was used before entering into the construction contract with Eul, and the plaintiff did not confirm whether the right to representation was granted to the defendant Eul. Thus, it is negligent in finding Eul that it did not have the right to representation for the defendant to conclude the construction contract on behalf of the defendant.

Therefore, the legal effect of the construction contract entered into with the Plaintiff is in accordance with the proviso of Article 125 of the Civil Act.

Since the defendant's defense is not vested in the defendant, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges' Branch Office Counter

* The ruling of small-sum case may choose not to state the reasons in accordance with Article 11-2(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act.