beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The defendant’s assertion of ratification of the act of representation without authority is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for additional determination as to the assertion of representation at the court of first instance, and thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part which is written or additionally determined;
A. (1) Even if the ratification of the Defendant’s act of non-representative (1) was concluded with the absence of legitimate power of representation, in view of the fact that AB, who was a legitimate representative director of AA, was aware of the conclusion of the said contract, did not raise an objection for a long time, and that the loan, which was executed as a security, was paid as the repayment of the subcontractor’s construction cost, and around May 2009, AA intended to pay the Defendant a loan as a substitute for the Defendant’s loan, and that AAM, who was the representative director of AA, recognized the validity of the establishment registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage in the criminal case, should be deemed as ratified the act of non-representative, such as AF, etc.
(2) The ratification of the act of representation with no authority is a single act with knowledge of the act of representation with no authority and with the effect of the act to vest in the person in question, and it does not require a certain method as to the method of expression of intent explicitly or implicitly. However, in order to recognize an implied ratification, there must be circumstances to deem that the person in question fully understand the legal status faced by the act and, even though it is possible to recognize an implied ratification, that the result of the act belongs to the person in question on the basis of the truth. Therefore, in determining this, it should be carefully examined various relevant circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37718 Decided December 23, 2010). The above legal doctrine is applicable.