(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.31 2014가단76609

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.31 2014가단76609

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from March 5, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the entire purport of the pleadings by Gap 1 and 2, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the amount of KRW 100 million to the defendant on March 10, 201 was set and lent as of April 30, 201.

B. If so, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan of KRW 100 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the borrowing of the instant money from the plaintiff is B, the former president of the Association, and that since B did not obtain the approval of the defendant's operating committee and the defendant's articles of incorporation, it is invalid as it goes beyond the representative authority of B.

However, even if the act was committed beyond the scope of representative authority of the representative director, the trust that the act was committed by a third party who does not know the restriction of representative authority shall be protected. The act committed by the representative director within the scope of representative authority shall be valid as a whole even if the representative director abused his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest, regardless of the company's profit. However, if the other party to the act knew or could have known the representative director's intention, it shall be null and void against the company. This is also applicable to cases where the representative director of a corporation under the Civil Act abused his/her representative authority.

In addition, even if the representative of a corporation does not undergo a resolution of the board of directors or the operating committee, it is only an internal decision-making of the corporation.

As such, if the other party to the transaction knew or could have known that the resolution was not made, the transaction is valid.

In this case, the other party to the transaction knew or could not have known that the resolution was made.

참조조문

-민법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원김천지원 2015.12.09 2015가단31977

-대법원 1996. 1. 26. 선고 94다42754 판결

-대법원 2015.09.10 2014다66673

-대구고등법원 2016.04.20 2015나21753

-대법원 2015.10.15 2014다208354