beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
Reasons
Basic Facts
If the purport of the argument as a whole is added to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, the plaintiff has a claim for the construction cost to the defendant's attached Eul, and the plaintiff delayed the payment thereof on August 24, 2015, and the plaintiff prepared a payment agreement to the effect that "C and the defendant sell the land and buildings on the land and the buildings on the ground thereof, which are set up until February 24, 2016, and repays KRW 16,00,000 to the plaintiff with the purchase price" (hereinafter referred to as the "payment agreement of this case"), and the payment agreement of this case includes the "B agent C" as the "B agent C," and it is recognized that there is a signature with C's unmanned.
The plaintiff's assertion C of the judgment on the claim for agreed payment under the payment agreement as to the cause of the claim had the power of representation to prepare the payment agreement of this case, or even if there was no power of representation, the plaintiff as the plaintiff believed C had the power of representation for the defendant through telephone conversations with the defendant at the time of preparation. Since there was any good faith or negligence in trust, and thus the expression agent is established.
Therefore, the defendant asserts that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 16,000,000 to the plaintiff according to the payment agreement of this case.
Judgment
In this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of No. 1-2 and No. 1-2 submitted by the Plaintiff alone had the authority to act for the Defendant in connection with the preparation of the payment agreement of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the power of representation and expression representation of C, the above assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff's assertion that the claim for damages caused by deception was about to apply for individual rehabilitation without the intention to repay the plaintiff's debt to the plaintiff, and in collusion with the defendant that caused damages equivalent to 16,000,000 won of the claim amount by deceiving the plaintiff as if he were to repay the above debt, and immediately applying for individual rehabilitation to the plaintiff as soon as the repayment date was delayed.