beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the new argument at the trial by the plaintiff at the court below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s representative director and D, who is an executive, have promised to pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff several times, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
The plaintiff used the name of the site director to C, and the plaintiff concluded the construction contract of this case with the belief that C has the authority to act for the defendant as the representative director or D, each time when the plaintiff claims the construction cost of this case, and that C has the authority to act for the defendant. Thus, the defendant is responsible for acting as an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act.
However, a juristic act by proxy must indicate that it is for the principal. Since the construction contract (Evidence A 2) of this case only includes the name of C and there is no indication that it is for the defendant, it is merely the conclusion of the contract by C in its own name, and it is not sufficient to view that it was made by proxy for the defendant, it cannot be established as an expression agent.
In addition, C was disadvantageous to the defendant at the construction site of this case.
or the name of the defendant at the site was used.
Even if so, it is not sufficient to view that the defendant gave the power of representation to C, and there is no evidence that the defendant representative director or D promised to pay the construction cost.
Therefore, all of the above arguments by the plaintiff are without merit.
3. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.