(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.04.30 2018나107976

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.04.30 2018나107976

전도금등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are recognized as legitimate even if the plaintiff presented additional evidence to this court citing the judgment of the first instance.

With respect to the assertion of granting additional power of representation or expression representation by the Plaintiff in this court, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the assertion of granting power of representation or representation

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Defendant: (b) the husband’s deposit account is used in the trade of fishery products; (c) the Plaintiff granted the right of representation to C to trade in his own name; or (b) even without granting the right of representation to C by allowing C to use the Defendant’s deposit account in the transaction with the Plaintiff; or (c) the Plaintiff expressed his intention of representation.

B. The fact that the defendant allowed C, her husband, to use his/her own deposit account is also the defendant.

However, although the name of each invoice (No. 3) that the Plaintiff appears to have prepared for the settlement of fishery products supplied by D from May 2016, the name of each invoice (No. 3) appears to be “E”, the fishing vessel that the Plaintiff traded with C or the Defendant seems to be marked for distinguishing it from the name of a clerical error or other similar vessel in light of the fact that it is “D”.

Then, in light of the fact that: (a) an additional statement is made to “(C)”; (b) the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a document verifying the content of Party A1 and sent “A” before it reaches October 2017; and (c) the Plaintiff did not at all indicate when and how the Defendant agreed on the contract with the Defendant; and (c) the circumstance that the Defendant permitted the Defendant to use the deposit account as above, granted C the power of representation in the transaction with the Plaintiff

(b) grant of power of representation to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.04.24 2014가합6265

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단154148

-광주지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나56196

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단5154317

-울산지방법원 2016.07.13 2015나22373