B. In a case where an agent, who was delegated with all management authority concerning an apartment by himself/herself, rents the apartment by pretending to himself/herself, sells the apartment to the lessee by pretending to himself/herself, whether the legal doctrine of apparent representation in excess of his/her authority may apply mutatis mutandis

B. In cases where an agent who has leased an apartment by pretending to himself/herself with all management authority, such as the lease of the apartment, etc., has again performed a legal act of selling the apartment to the lessee by pretending himself/herself to himself/herself, it may be deemed that the legal doctrine of expression agency beyond his/her authority has an effect on himself/herself by analogy

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant, based on its adopted evidence, entrusted all the management of the apartment of this case, including the lease of the apartment of this case with the seal of the defendant to the non-party who is his punishment. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence

The expression agency of Article 126 of the Civil Act is established when an agent expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intention to act for himself/herself, or performs any act other than his/her authority with an intention to act as an agent. In cases where an agent uses his/her name without any such representation, and deceptions his/her name as if he/she was the principal, and thereby directly performs a legal act under his/her name, barring any special circumstance, the expression agency under the above provision of the Civil Act cannot be established. However, as in the case of this case, if an agent, as he/she was delegated with all management authority, such as the lease of an apartment, by misrepresenting himself/herself as he/she himself/herself, sells an apartment again to the lessee, he/she shall be deemed to have the effect of the above act by applying the legal principle of representation beyond his/her authority to the Nonparty at the time of the above sale contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Da273, Mar. 28, 1988; 77Da16975, May 28, 197, etc.).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the representation. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.