logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.12.11 2014나51047
건물인도등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

3. The first instance.

Reasons

1. The Defendants, based on the facts, concluded a lease agreement with the J on behalf of the Plaintiff as an obligatory lease agreement with regard to each building indicated in the “leased” column as indicated below among the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1 owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”), and possessed the pertinent leased property upon delivery by the J after paying the relevant lease deposit to the J.

[Attachment B 1 B 1 B 1, 201, KRW 40,000 KRW 2 C 35,000 KRW 14,00 KRW 7,00 KRW 35,00 KRW 7,00 KRW 3,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 10,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 103,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 4,00 KRW 106,0 KRW 5,00 KRW 16,00 KRW 163,0 KRW 16,00 KRW 5,00 KRW 6163,00 KRW 6,00 KRW 6,000, KRW 6163,00 KRW 1063,00 KRW 16,0037371, Nov. 1, 2011

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff merely conferred the power of representation to enter into a lease agreement with the J as a monthly rent agreement, but did not confer the power of representation to enter into a lease agreement as a obligatory rent agreement. Therefore, the conclusion that the J entered into each of the instant lease agreements with the Defendants constitutes an act of unauthorized representation and thus null and void.

B. The Defendants’ assertion is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff.

Even if J did not grant the right of representation as to the lease agreement as the obligatory lease agreement, the J had the fundamental power of representation for the Plaintiff regarding the management and lease of the instant building. The Defendants, as the Defendants, have justifiable grounds to believe that they had the right of representation. As such, the expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act is deemed to be an expression agent.

arrow