beta
Text
1. The claims against the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that D lent the name of the business operator to D in operating a restaurant.
D Based on this, it entered into a rental car contract with Defendant 1 in the name of Plaintiff 1 in the name of Plaintiff 1, and entered into a guarantee insurance contract with Defendant 2.
The two contracts are concluded by stealing the name of the plaintiff without authority and are null and void in relation to the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no claim against the defendants against the plaintiff.
2. In that the seal imprint is affixed to Defendant 1’s YA agreement and the performance guarantee insurance policy with Defendant 2 is submitted, it is presumed that the YA agreement was concluded by the Plaintiff.
Meanwhile, even if it was made according to D as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff appears to have issued D with seal imprint, seal impression, and identification card to be used for the restaurant business in the name of the Plaintiff, and an authorized certificate which can be used for the issuance of the performance guarantee insurance policy. This is a comprehensive permission to use within the scope of the restaurant business in the name of the Plaintiff. Therefore, even if it is not expressly permitted in advance, a siren contract is deemed to have been concluded for the purpose of dealing with expenses incurred in the restaurant business (A) and thus, it is recognized that a siren contract was made within the scope permitted in advance by the Plaintiff.
Even if it goes beyond the scope of implied permission of the Plaintiff’s household affairs, the Plaintiff granted D the basic right of representation to the extent that it operates his business under the name of the Plaintiff with his personal seal impression and identification card as above. Since D presented the business registration certificate in the name of the Plaintiff and applied for a siren for the use of the cost of a restaurant for tax purposes, Defendant 1, the other party, is recognized as having justifiable grounds to believe that D has the right of representation to conclude a contract (Article 126 of the Civil Act). Defendant 1’s rental agreement with Defendant 1 is valid for the Plaintiff.