logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.10.30 2019나36855
매매대금반환
Text

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts by the court is as follows: “1. Basic facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance.

With the exception of correcting "2019." as "2018.", it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' primary claim against Defendant C

A. The instant contract, which is the cause of the Plaintiffs’ claim, was concluded by Defendant D, a non-authorized representative. On May 4, 2018, before the Plaintiffs expressed their intent of ratification, Defendant C had the duty to return the down payment received from the Plaintiffs in unjust enrichment.

Even if not, the instant contract was rescinded by Defendant D by clarifying his intention to return the down payment.

B. 1) As to the assertion of the right of withdrawal, the act of granting the right of representation is an infinite act, which is an infinite act, and may be done by an implied expression of intent without an express expression of intent, and there are cases where the granting of the right of representation is inferred by de facto neglect, such as where a certain person knows that he/she performs an act with the appearance of his/her agent, and neglecting it without an objection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da20315 Decided May 26, 2016, etc.). (B) In light of the following circumstances, Defendant C was not in a state of business ability at the time of entering into the instant contract, and Defendant C granted the power of representation concerning the sale of the instant real estate to Defendant D, and Defendant D duly concluded the instant contract based on its power of representation, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account: (a) the descriptions of evidence Nos. 7, 14, 15, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 10; (b) the testimony of the witness G at the trial; and (c) the entire purport of the argument as a result of the personal examination of Defendant C at the trial.

1. Defendant C.

arrow