logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.22 2017나59201
장비대여료
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss “paragraph (3)” under Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “paragraph (c)”; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s new argument at the court of first instance as follows; and (c) thereby,

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion F had a partial comprehensive power of attorney as to the construction of C, and thus, the Plaintiff has the authority to reach an agreement on the direct payment with the Plaintiff. Even if not, there is a reasonable ground to believe that the Plaintiff is entitled to reach the above agreement with F. Thus, Defendant Sc construction must implement the terms of the agreement on the direct payment. If it is not recognized that the F has a partial comprehensive power of attorney or that the apparent representation doctrine is not applicable, the F has the Plaintiff waived its right to the rent claim for the Sck, and the Plaintiff caused damage equivalent to the above credit amount, and thus, Defendant Sc construction is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as an employer of F for damages equivalent to the above credit amount.

B. Prior to examining whether a judgment F has the authority to make a direct payment agreement on behalf of Defendant SK construction, the first instance judgment No. 42.2.

As seen below, it is insufficient to view that F entered into a direct payment agreement with the Plaintiff in order to have the legal effect attributed to Defendant SK construction. As such, the Plaintiff’s partial comprehensive delegation and expression representation claim on a different premise is without merit without further review.

(The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the F has the authority to make a direct payment agreement.)

arrow