beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the purpose of this case is to be stated by the court of first instance using "Nos. 123 and 139 of H building 123 and 139 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as "Nos. 123 and 139 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and "Nos. 204, 207, 208, 309, and 310 of the 4th to 18 through 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as "No. 204, 207, 208, 309, and 310 of the 4th to 204, 207, 209, 309, and 310 of the 3th to 310 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such judgment shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Determination on addition
A. At the time when the instant lease agreement was concluded, the intent of the Defendants’ assertion did not exist with the co-defendant B of the first instance trial, and thus, the expressive representation pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act cannot be established.
B. 1) In a case where an expression agent under Article 129 of the Civil Act is recognized due to the extinction of the power of representation that existed in the past of the relevant legal doctrine, if an act of representation exceeds the authority of such an expression agent, an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act may be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74713, Jan. 31, 2008). 2) On the basis of the above legal doctrine, the Defendant, F and the first instance court’s co-defendant B did not have the basic power of representation at the time when the instant lease contract was concluded as claimed by the Defendants, F and the first instance court’s co-defendant B around June 2008, the Plaintiff, the first instance court’s co-defendant, the first instance court’s co-defendant, the first instance court’s co-defendant, the first instance court’s co-defendant, and the second instance court’s return of the deposit or the second instance judgment’s right of representation to the Defendants No. 310 or 210.