beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for an additional determination as to the assertion emphasized by the Defendant in this court, as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that a sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on the premise that the Plaintiff is an expression agent in excess of the Plaintiff’s agent or authority, with a view to preparing a sales contract on the instant motor vehicle, that the sales contract had already been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, prior to the Plaintiff’s direct delivery, with the purchase price of KRW 72 million.
On the other hand, the above argument by the defendant is against the rule of experience that the plaintiff's agent, who is the contracting party to the contract, was formed and paid a purchase price to the plaintiff's agent at the site of the contract without any verification, on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff's agent asserted the plaintiff's agent in the telephone conversation with the person without the name and the person without the name and the person without the name. In light of the above fact-finding, the defendant merely appears to have been accused of the plaintiff's name from the person without the name and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the plaintiff's agent Eul had any basic power of attorney in relation to the plaintiff's agent or the plaintiff, and the defendant's agent entered into a verbal contract with the non-person without the name and the person without the name and the person without the name and the person without the name and the person with the name and the person with the name and the person with whom the contract cannot be confirmed. Thus, the defendant again remitted the above money to the account under the name of a third party, not the plaintiff's name and the person without the name.