beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's ground for claim
A. Although a claim based on a loan is not directly sealed by the defendant at the time when the loan certificate of this case was drawn up and the security was offered, C, the defendant's spouse, affixed the above loan certificate on behalf of the defendant and offered the deposit money under the name of the defendant as security, and the defendant is obligated to pay the loan of this case as the principal of the above agency.
B. The defendant asserts that even if a loan claim based on an expression agency was made, the defendant did not grant C the right of representation for bearing the above obligation.
Even if there is a right of representation as to the daily home affairs between husband and wife (Article 827(1) of the Civil Act). Article 827(1) of the Civil Act (Article 827(1) of the Civil Act provides that a husband and wife shall have the right of representation as to the daily home affairs.) If an agent performs a juristic act beyond his/her authority as a basic right of representation (Article 126 of the Civil Act, Article 126 of the Civil Act, and Article 126 of the same Act, if there are justifiable grounds to believe that a third party has the right of representation, the principal shall be liable for such act).
C prepared the above loan certificate on behalf of the defendant and affixed the defendant's seal imprint certificate, family relation certificate, employment certificate, and apartment lease contract under the name of the defendant. D, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's representative, has sufficient reasons to believe that C was granted the above loan certificate and the right of representation for the preparation of the above loan certificate and the provision of security.
2. In light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1-1, which seem to correspond to the plaintiff's above assertion, it is difficult to believe in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1-2 through 6, and evidence Nos. 1-2, 1-2, and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, according to each description of Eul's evidence, D is the defendant.