beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts that no dispute exists;
A. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods under the name of Nonparty A (mutual name B) and C (mutual name D) with the head of the E office indicated as the head of the business office, and the head of the E office indicated as the head of the C (mutual name D) to enter into a contract for the supply of goods under the name of Nonparty C (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). After entering into a contract for the supply of goods under the name of Section C (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract,” each of the above contracts for the supply of goods, issued a detailed statement of transaction to be supplied to A, and supplied the head of E to the head of the E office on March 13, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). The transaction statement was equivalent to KRW 12,86,000,000 on March 16, 2015, and supplied the transaction statement of KRW 30,000,000,000.
B. From the head of E office around March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a guarantee insurance contract security (sale price), which was issued by the Defendant as the principal contract of the instant case and as the guarantee of the payment of the purchase price of credit goods of A (the policyholder, the Plaintiff, the insured, the purchase price of insurance amount of KRW 20,000,000 from March 11, 2015 to March 10, 2016). ② Around March 11, 2015, the Defendant was issued a guarantee insurance contract (sale price) as the principal contract of the instant case and issued (sale price) the payment guarantee of the purchase price of credit goods of KRW 20,000,000 from March 11, 2015 to March 10, 2016).
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the premise that the head of E office in his name is a commercial employee with a partial comprehensive power of representation under Article 15 of the Commercial Act or an expression agent under the Civil Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the date of receipt was supplied to the head of E office according to the instant contract, but did not receive the cost, and the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was paid the total amount of KRW 40 million and delay damages according to the performance guarantee insurance contract.
(b) judgment;