beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
o No. 15-16 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the total amount of KRW 21,22,60,000 out of the total amount of KRW 23,196,70,000 (the unpaid amount of KRW 1,974,100)," was collected KRW 2,122,260,000 out of the total amount of KRW 2,319,670,000 (the unpaid amount of KRW 197,410,000)."
o The following items shall be added to the 7th of the 14th judgment of the first instance court, and the 8th judgment "(6)" shall be added to "(7) decision".
Whether Defendant B, C, and D is responsible for the expression agency of the instant consignment land. On May 200, the Plaintiff agreed that Defendant B, C, and D left the Plaintiff’s representative, etc. to develop and supply the housing site if they delivered the sale price to Defendant E., and that Defendant B, C, and D provided the title of the sale agency to Defendant E and had them act as an agent of the entire housing site developed and sold. As such, Defendant B, C, and D are liable for the return of excess sale price pursuant to the expression agency clause of Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act. However, as seen earlier, the instant consignment and consulting contract constitute delegation contract of the sale of the instant consignment land to Defendant E, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that Defendant B, C, and D indicated the right of representation on the sale of the instant consignment land to Defendant E, or that Defendant E entered into a preliminary claim for the sale price and received the additional payment from the Plaintiff or his agent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B, C, and D concluded the instant consignment contract with the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim is determined at the trial.