[원인무효에인한근저당권설정등기말소등기][집11(2)민,235]
Where a person who holds a registration certificate and his/her seal after being entrusted with the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer by him/her obtains a certificate of a seal imprint by forging a document, and an expression agent in excess of authority;
If the plaintiff asked Gap to request the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the building site in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have granted the power of representation to Gap in the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the building site. Thus, in the contract to establish the mortgage of this case with the defendant, although Gap holds the certificate of right to the building site and the seal or certificate of seal imprint of the plaintiff, even if it was made unfairly by Gap, if there is any justifiable reason to believe that the defendant has the power of representation, it shall not be recognized as an expression agent beyond his authority.
Article 126 of the Civil Act
Money paid in full
Defendant
Jinju support in the first instance, Daegu High Court Decision 62Na468 delivered on August 2, 1963
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The gist of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Attorney
In addition, there is no evidence to support the fact that the plaintiff granted the right of representation to the non-party to the contract establishing a right to collateral security on this case's real estate, and there is only a fact that the plaintiff selected an adequate judicial clerk about the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on this case's land and delegated it to the non-party, and in light of all circumstances, it is obvious that the defendant was not negligent in believing the non-party as the plaintiff's agent, but it is argued that the court below rejected the defendant'
According to the records, even if the non-party assumes that the right of representation was not granted by the plaintiff when entering into a contract to establish a right to collateral security on this case, the defendant alleged that the non-party was responsible for the above contract because the plaintiff delegated the procedure to the non-party for the registration of acquisition of ownership on this case to the non-party, and held the registration certificate and the plaintiff's seal impression. Thus, the court below rejected the non-party's assertion that the non-party did not have a legitimate reason to believe that the non-party was the plaintiff's agent in the contract to establish a right to collateral security. However, the court below found the non-party's assertion that the non-party did not have a legitimate reason to believe that the non-party's right of representation was not granted to the non-party as to this case's land under the plaintiff's name because the non-party did not have a legitimate reason to believe that the non-party's right of representation was not granted to the non-party because the non-party's right of representation was falsified due to forgery of the plaintiff's report and the right of title.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the original trial in order to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal and to re-examine the original trial.
The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags