beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
Basic facts, this Court’s reasoning is as follows: “F” on the second 6th 6th son of the judgment of the first instance court (the death on July 2017), and “the vehicle number at the time of purchase” on the same 9th 6th son.
“The next day of January 12, 2018” of the same 13th page is the date of loss of the benefit under the loan agreement of this case.
With the exception of adding “the part corresponding to the judgment of the first instance,” it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment. As such, the gist of the allegations by the parties is that the Defendant directly concluded the instant loan contract, or that F concluded the instant loan contract with the comprehensive power of representation granted by the Defendant. Even if F did not have obtained the power of representation to conclude the instant loan contract from the Defendant, the Defendant granted F the basic right of representation by recognizing “F” as “the identification of the loan contract,” while granting its seal imprints and certificates of seal impression, etc., and the Plaintiff believed that F had the authority to conclude the instant loan contract on behalf of the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act.
F Even if the act of entering into the instant loan contract is an act of unauthorized Representation, the Defendant ratified it later.
Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan and damages for delay under the instant loan agreement.
The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant did not directly conclude the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff, and that there was no fact that the Defendant granted the F comprehensive power of representation for the conclusion of the instant loan agreement.
In addition, the defendant did not confer any basic power of attorney to F, and there is no fact that the defendant ratified the loan contract of this case, which is an act of unauthorized representation of F.
The Defendant did not receive any loan under the instant loan agreement.
Therefore, the loan contract of this case is against the defendant.