beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 9, 1999, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant with respect to the building D'D' located in the Cheongju-si Seoul (hereinafter "the building of this case").
B. On November 14, 2011, the Defendant appointed E as a custodian of D, and on July 24, 2014, the Defendant drafted and issued to F a power of delegation to the effect that “any rights and management issues related to the instant building are delegated”.
C. On October 2014, the Plaintiff performed the removal and repair work on the part of the toilets of the second floor of the instant building at F’s request (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 10.6 million and the delay damages therefrom, since the Plaintiff concluded the contract with E or F, which is the Defendant’s deceased person or his representative, with the construction cost of KRW 13 million, and completed the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant contract”). However, the Plaintiff did not receive the remainder of KRW 10.6 million, excluding the down payment already paid by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 10.6 million and the delay damages.
B. When an agent performs an act on behalf of the principal, the principal and his/her agent are indicated in accordance with Article 114(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, if an agent performs an act on behalf of the principal, in principle, the principal is not effective.
However, the present name indicating that an agent is for the principal does not necessarily need to be explicitly and explicitly stated, and even if the present name is not present, when the other party knew or could have known that he was acting as an agent in light of various circumstances, it shall have effect on the principal in accordance with the proviso of Article 115 of the Civil Act.
However, in respect of representation.