[손해배상][공1984.3.15.(724),360]
A. Whether the violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle constitutes a ground for appeal
(b) Whether the upper half of the precedent is appropriate for specific rights and interests without a timely indication;
A. As to the violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle of expression agency, the argument does not fall under any of the cases stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
B. Although claiming a violation of the precedent under Article 11(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, if it is not possible to find a city that is inconsistent with any of the precedents of the Supreme Court, the appeal is groundless.
Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings
[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Jeong Young-chul et al.)
Seoul High Court Decision 83Na1674 delivered on September 23, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows. In other words, the plaintiff was a person who entered into the apartment sales contract in this case with the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and the ownership transfer registration in the future of the plaintiff was impossible after the double contract was concluded with the non-party 1 for the above apartment, and thus, the ownership transfer registration in the future of the plaintiff was made. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff as a person who lent the above company's name concerning the construction and sale of apartment units to the above company. The judgment below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's expression agent is merely a person who was issued and delivered the sales contract by the non-party 2, who was a regular director of the above company without legitimate authority to sell the apartment units. Further, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's expression agent's representative was negligent in believing the above company or the above non-party 2 to have the power of representation without evidence, and there was a violation of law
However, the above argument concerning the violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle of expression agency is not a case falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and it is clear that the above argument does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and then, the violation of the precedents concerning the liability of the nominal lender cannot be known in the city as to the violation of Article 11 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Protection, etc. of Legal Proceedings, but it is not clear that the court below specifically interpreted the plaintiff in conflict with any of the precedents of the party members. The purport of the judgment below is that the claim for damages of this case on the premise that the plaintiff
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.
Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)