beta
Text
The judgment below
All parts concerning delay damages are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4
A. In a case where an actor who executes a contract takes a juristic act in the name of another person, as to whom the actor and the other party are the party to the contract, the parties to the contract shall first determine the offender or the title holder as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the actor, if the actor and the other party agree with each other. If the other party fail to agree with each other, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content, and purpose of the contract, the parties shall be determined in accordance with which the actor
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da42303 Decided July 10, 2008, etc.). On the other hand, Article 48 of the Commercial Act provides, “If a representative of a commercial act does not indicate that he/she is on behalf of himself/herself, such act is effective as against himself/herself. However, if the other party does not know that he/she is on behalf of himself/herself, an agent may also demand performance.” Thus, in so-called partnership representative, even if the juristic act does not indicate that it is on behalf of an association, if it is on commercial activity, it shall be deemed that the juristic act extends to all the union members
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da79340 Decided January 30, 2009). B.
The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment, and, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that the seller of each of the instant sales contracts is the Defendants when reasonably interpreting the details and purpose of the conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts, and the Plaintiffs’ genuine intent