logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.27 2018나30619
용역비
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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part of “A” as a special provision from No. 3 to No. 21 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used to read “only expenses may be claimed unless otherwise agreed upon, and no remuneration shall be claimed (Article 739 of the Civil Act),” and except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the defendant in the court of first instance, this part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant additionally determined that the plaintiff refused to find the defendant and prepare for the event by introducing F without any relation with the defendant, and the plaintiff also understood and returned to the defendant. It is evident that F did not raise any objection to the plaintiff's event preparation, and if the plaintiff knew that F would help the plaintiff make an event free of charge in order to make talent donations, and that F would not raise any objection to the plaintiff's event preparation, it would have opposed if he knew that he would make an event preparation in consideration of the plaintiff's claim exceeding KRW 30 million,000,000. Thus, the plaintiff's exercise agency work of this case is contrary to the defendant's will and it cannot be recognized as having managed the affairs on behalf of the defendant.

In order to establish the office management, first of all, it is required that the office is another person's business and there is an intention to transfer the actual interest in the management for another person, and furthermore, it is not clear that the process of the office is disadvantageous to the principal or against the principal's will.

[See Supreme Court Decision 94Da41072, 94Da41089, Dec. 22, 1994, etc.] Therefore, the health unit and the aforementioned facts and evidence reveal the overall purport of the arguments and arguments.

arrow