beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 24,257,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from August 22, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The parties’ assertion and key issue Plaintiff asserted that, around May 6, 2013, the Defendant’s agent C and D (the Defendant’s children) entered into a borrow construction contract on the E-owned land owned by the Defendant’s agent C and D (the Defendant’s children) and carried out construction and additional construction in accordance with the design. However, the Defendant paid only a part of the equipment cost, etc., and thus, the remainder of the cost (such as the cost of equipment and personnel
The defendant asserts that no agreement was made with the plaintiff with respect to the flat work of the land of this case, and that the defendant did not obtain any profit above the amount remitted to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable.
The key issue of the instant case is ① whether the Defendant is liable as a party to the contract; ② whether the Defendant is liable as a party to the contract even if not, and ③ whether the Defendant is liable to return unjust enrichment even without contractual responsibilities.
2. Determination
A. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the right of representation for the instant construction contract was granted to the Defendant’s agent C, it is insufficient to conclude that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the testimony of the witness C alone delegated the Defendant to C the right to conclude the instant construction contract, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
B. In order to claim the effect of an expression agent beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act as to whether the representation is established or not, the other party is believed to have the right of representation and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has the right of representation and to believe that the other party performs acts other than the authority with the intention of representation clearly or implicitly, or with the intention of representation. Thus, the existence of a justifiable reason here should be objectively observed and determined by examining all the circumstances existing when the act of representation by the name agent
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da46828, Nov. 12, 2009).