logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.08.31 2016나23083
설계대금
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. Grounds for this court’s instructions are set forth in Section 3 of the first instance court’s judgment.

In addition to the following cases, the part stated in the paragraph is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and such part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

A person shall be appointed.

B. Whether the liability for expressive representation is established or not, and if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the testimony of Gap Nos. 3 through 8, 10 through 16, 22, Eul evidence No. 1 (including those with serial numbers), and witness D and witness B of the court of first instance, the defendant issued documents such as the certificate of personal seal impression necessary for the application for the building permit of the land of this case to Eul who is the spouse of this case, thereby granting Eul the authority to carry out the application for the building permit on behalf of the defendant, and there is no counter-proof, therefore, the basic authority necessary for the establishment of the expressive representation of Article 126 of the Civil Act shall be recognized to

However, considering whether the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was entitled to enter into the instant design service contract on behalf of the Defendant, the following circumstances, namely, ① a design service contract different from the application for a building permit under a contract to separately determine the content of design service, the scale of service cost, and the timing of performance, etc., unlike the application for a building permit, cannot be said to have been naturally granted the right to enter into the design service contract on behalf of the owner of the building at the time of application for a building permit. ③ The Plaintiff did not receive documents to confirm the Defendant’s intent to enter into the instant design service contract, such as the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression necessary for the building permit, the written consent for the use of the site, or the proxy letter, other than the Defendant’s written consent for the construction permit, and ④ the Plaintiff received the instant design service request from D.

arrow