logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.03.24 2015다66243
임대차보증금반환
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

A. In order to claim the effect of the apparent representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act as to the grounds of appeal on the apparent representation liability, the requirement that the other party has the right of representation on his/her own behalf and there are justifiable grounds to believe that there exists such right. The existence of justifiable grounds shall objectively observe and determine all the circumstances existing when the act of the nominal agent is performed.

(1) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The parties to a lawsuit shall file a petition for a lawsuit with the competent court shall file a petition for a lawsuit with the competent court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33418, 33425, Feb. 1, 2008)” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33418, 33425, Feb. 1, 2008).

(1) On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the court below held that (1) E, as the husband of the defendant, has the authority to act on behalf of the defendant with respect to a juristic act in the daily home of the husband and wife, and that the defendant ordered F to rent the instant officetel 204,000,000 won and KRW 380,000,000 monthly rent, but (2) it is insufficient to recognize that E or F, at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, had justifiable grounds to believe that E or F, was entitled to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the defendant, and thus, rejected the plaintiff's assertion as the expression agent.

The ground of appeal that such a determination by the lower court is erroneous is the purport of disputing the fact-finding by the lower court, and is substantially erroneous in the selection of evidence and the judgment of value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the lower court.

arrow