beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs thereof shall be individually considered.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to adding the following judgments as to the newly asserted matters in the court of the first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Defendant alleged that D had concluded a sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff, so it is insufficient to conclude that D was granted the power to execute each of the above sales contracts by the Plaintiff solely on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 28, 29, and No. 11, 12, and 13, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
In addition, as to the assertion of ratification of unauthorized Representation, the defendant did not have the right to individually allow the plaintiff as to the execution of D Nos. 1 and 2 sales contracts and the deduction of sales price
In light of the fact that the Plaintiff fulfilled each of the above sales contracts entered into by D’s instructions, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff implicitly ratified the act of entering into each of the above sales contracts and deducting the sales amount. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was that the first and second sales contracts were concluded by D’s instructions.
(1) The Plaintiff’s act of entering into each of the above sales contracts, deduction of the sales amount, etc. can not be seen as impliedly ratified, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The summary of the defendant's assertion as to the settlement of the consignment sale price is based on the sales commission rate (37 to 41%) of the intermediary manager who claims that the plaintiff should be deducted from the consignment sale price to the defendant, because the defendant entered part of the carry-over goods from the goods supplied by the plaintiff as the second consignment sale into the store directly operated by the plaintiff, and the consignment sale price to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is KRW 60,237,000.