logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.05.20 2015나779
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the "2913No837" of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., "2013No837", and ii) the plaintiff's new argument in the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following: therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that even if the Plaintiff did not grant the power of representation to F regarding the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendants are liable for the apparent representation pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act. 2) The apparent representation beyond the power of representation pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act is established when the owner of the power of representation exceeds his/her power of representation.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant, namely, that the instant sales contract was made in the name of the Defendants; that is, the Plaintiff deposited the sales price under the instant sales contract into the account under the name of Defendant B; that was, the Defendants remitted the sales price to F; and that F kept the Defendants’ business registration certificate, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants granted a certain power of representation to F; and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that F had the basic power of representation, which serves as the basis for establishing the representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are liable for the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, since the Defendants had F use the Defendants’ business registration certificate and the passbook in the name of the Defendants, the Defendants are liable for the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act. 2) The purpose of Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a bona fide third party who trades with the nominal holder knowing that the nominal holder is the proprietor of the business, in the event that the nominal holder has lent his name to another person and had another person conduct the business.

arrow