[2] In a case where a wife, who pretends a third party to be her husband, borrowed money as security by forging relevant documents, the case denying liability for expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Code against the husband

[2] In a case where a wife, who pretends a third party to be her husband, borrowed money as security by forging relevant documents, the case denying liability for expression agency as stipulated in Article 126 of the Civil Code against the husband

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when a writ of summons and date of pleading sent by the court of first instance to the defendant's domicile on April 10, 200, the court below affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff on February 4, 1998 after the first instance court proceeded with the lawsuit through service by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment in the same manner as that of the court of first instance. On March 29, 2000, the defendant knew that the court of first instance, which was pending between the plaintiff and the defendant on March 29, 200, submitted as evidence the first instance court's request for the procedure of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, the court below rejected the appeal of this case on April 10, 200 with the knowledge that the first instance court was sentenced and served by public notice, and except in such a case, the defendant did not know that there was any error in the judgment of first instance prior to the date of service by public notice, and thus, the court below rejected the defendant's appeal of this case as alleged in the ground of appeal.

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit or it is not acceptable to criticize the judgment of the court below, which is a fact-finding court, for the selection of evidence and fact-finding.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established when a representative expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal or performs any act other than his/her authority with his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal. In cases where a representative expresses or expresses his/her intention to act on behalf of the principal and in cases where the principal uses his/her name as if he/she was the principal, thereby deceiving him/herself as if he/she was the principal, the expression agency under the above Article cannot be

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1, who was his husband at the time of the defendant's wife, provided the real estate of this case as collateral and borrowed money from the plaintiff. The non-party 2, in collusion with the non-party 2, removed the defendant's photograph and affixed a copy of the resident registration certificate as the defendant, and affixed the defendant's seal to the non-party 2, such as the certificate of borrowed money and the bill transaction agreement of this case as if the non-party 2 were the defendant in charge of the plaintiff, and then forged it. The non-party 1 was granted a certain basic power before each of the loans of this case, or the defendant's daily right as the defendant's wife. However, the court below's decision that the non-party 2 was not the defendant's agent's own representative, but it is just to find that the non-party 2 was the defendant's agent's own right to represent the plaintiff and it is not reasonable to believe that the plaintiff's representative's name was the defendant's own principal as the above.

In this case, the argument that the legal principles of expression representation should be applied to the acts of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 as a whole is merely an independent opinion and cannot be accepted. Therefore, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to omission of judgment or expression representation in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case on the grounds of different issues.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence of the judgment, found it difficult for the non-party 1 to recover the above maximum debt amount of the real estate of this case under the name of the defendant 1 as part of the loan of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the first loan"), and cancelled the registration of creation of a mortgage on June 16, 1995. On the other hand, the non-party 1 had the non-party 2 do so under the name of the defendant 1 as if the loan of this case were the defendant 1, and it was hard to find that the non-party 1 did not obtain the above maximum debt amount of the loan amount of this case under the name of the non-party 1 as 0,00,000 won and the debtor did not obtain the loan from the non-party 1 as 0,000,0000 won under the name of the non-party 1, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 did not obtain the loan from the non-party 1,0000,0000 won.

In addition, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the above white fever, etc. was made by Nonparty 2 using the name of the defendant himself and forged relevant documents, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the above name was effective against the defendant. Although the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the above name was not cancelled on the ground of invalidation of the cause, such ground alone does not affect the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be deemed to have obtained the non-party's interest due to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the above name. Thus, the judgment below

4. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)