beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 26, 2013, the Defendant, as a waterworks and sewerage constructor, was awarded a contract with the Busan Jung-gu Office for a project for the improvement of flood-proof facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”) to “B”, thereby granting a lump sum subcontract prohibited to C on March 7, 2013.
B. C’s representative D requested E to manage the instant construction site, and E managed and supervised the instant construction site.
C. The Plaintiff, as a lessor of a refacing season, leased the equipment for cutting off at the instant construction site from March 19, 2013 to June 24, 2013 at the request of E (hereinafter “instant lease”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1’s evidence, Gap 6’s evidence or 8’s evidence (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness F of the first instance trial, Eul’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Plaintiff leased the sofaculation to the Defendant under the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the rent only from March 19, 2013 to April 18, 2013, and the remainder of rent 1,628,00 won was not paid. ② Even if there is no legitimate authority for the Defendant to act on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant is liable to act on behalf of expression in the Civil Act or for act on behalf of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. Defendant’s assertion ① The parties to the instant lease agreement are both the Plaintiff and C or E, and the Defendant did not enter into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and ② the Plaintiff was well aware of the relationship between the Defendant, C or E, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for the expression representation under the Civil Act or the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
③ Even if the Defendant is obligated to pay rent to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff received part of the rent that occurred from April 19, 2013 from C, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be said to be the unpaid rent as claimed by the Plaintiff.
3. Determination A.