beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 42,300,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from April 26, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the police KON entered into a supply contract with the Defendant’s regular director C, representing the Defendant, with the amount of KRW 90 million. According to the above contract, the KON finished delivery around August 22, 2012. However, the Defendant paid only part of the price of supplied goods, and paid only KRW 42.3 million.
Therefore, as a representative director under the Commercial Act, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of 42.3 million won and damages for delay.
2. Determination:
A. Article 395 of the Commercial Act provides that "a director who has used a name which is recognized as having the authority to represent the company, such as president, vice president, managing director, managing director, or any other name which can be recognized as having the authority to represent the company, shall be liable for such act against a third party acting in good faith even if the director has no authority to represent the company." Since Article 395 of the Commercial Act provides for the company's liability for the act of a director who has used a name which can be recognized as having the authority to represent the company, Article 395 of the Commercial Act provides for the company's liability for the act of a director who has used the name which can be recognized as having the authority to represent the company, the expressed representative director must be qualified as a director. However, this provision stipulates that in order to protect the third party who has trusted the appearance of the representative director as the representative director in accordance with the doctrine of prohibition of speech or external theory, the company which is responsible for such act shall be held liable for the third party acting in good faith, as well as where the above provision applies mutatis mutandis.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da34709 delivered on March 27, 1998, etc.). B.
Written evidence Nos. 1 through 6 shall be written.