(영문) 대구지법 1987. 9. 25. 선고 87사4 제3민사부판결 : 상고[전세금청구사건][하집1987(3),144]
Where a lease contract is concluded with another person with respect to the real estate owned by the husband with the husband using the husband's certificate of his/her personal seal impression whose period of validity has expired, the
In a case where a wife of a family year residing in Japan, who returned to Korea 3 to 4 times a year, is permitted to borrow money from the husband's husband's property as collateral, and the husband's personal seal impression and seal is in custody, the address change of the husband's personal seal impression during the custody of the husband's personal seal impression is voluntarily corrected to the address of Korea from the address within Japan to the address of Korea, and where a lease contract is entered into with the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff on the real property after the valid period of the certificate of personal seal impression expires, the Plaintiff'
Article 126 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 72Da1626 decided Jan. 16, 1973 (Article 126 (17) of the Civil Code, Article 121 of the Civil Code, Article 183-4) 80 decided Sept. 9, 1980 (Article 126 (26) of the Civil Code, Article 126 (213), Article 273-291)
Livestock-unit agricultural cooperatives
Realization of competences
Daegu District Court Decision 85Na409 delivered on January 29, 1986
1. The original judgment and its original judgment shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff (defendant)'s claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the litigation in the previous trial and retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The same shall apply to the order.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,00,000 with 25% per annum from the day following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of the same.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
1. Determination on the grounds for retrial
The judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered on April 11, 1985 by the plaintiff (the re-appellant, the plaintiff hereinafter the plaintiff) against the defendant (the defendant for re-adjudication, the defendant hereinafter the defendant) and the defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment in favor of the plaintiff on April 11, 1985, but the appellate court also rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on January 29, 1986 on the dismissal of the appeal on February 25, 1986. The fact that the judgment became final and conclusive on February 25, 1986 does not clearly dispute the plaintiff in the argument of this case, and thus, it is deemed that the plaintiff was not led to confession.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant's evidence Nos. 85Na409, which is a party member of the judgment subject to a retrial, based on fact-finding based on Gap evidence No. 1 (Real Estate Lease Contract) was proved to be a forged document by the non-party, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and according to the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5 and No. 4-1 to 7 of the above judgment, the non-party was found to have a relationship between the defendant who is one B, one B, and the non-party, and the non-party, as evidence No. 1 and the non-party, were found to have been found to have been aware of the facts that the defendant returned to Korea around Feb. 1983, 1981, and the non-party's evidence No. 2, which is the non-party's new evidence No. 1 and the non-party's new evidence No. 1 and the non-party's new evidence No. 981.
2. Determination as to whether the judgment subject to a retrial is justifiable
Furthermore, as to the legitimacy of the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff is the cause of claim in this case. On June 15, 1983, the Plaintiff asserted that the Nonparty, who was in fact represented by the Defendant on June 15, 1983, leased the lease deposit of KRW 3,00,000 and KRW 1,000 from the first floor of the second floor of the livestock industry, the 98-1st floor of the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the livestock industry, the 3,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 2 years, and the above building was occupied and used. On May 1984, the Plaintiff did not have any reason to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s right to representation as to the 3,00,000,000 won under the name of the Defendant, and thus, the Nonparty did not have any reason to believe that the Plaintiff obtained the Defendant’s consent in entering the lease contract in the name of the Defendant, or obtained the right to representation from the Defendant.
The plaintiff did not explicitly confer the right of representation on the non-party 1 to the above non-party 2. The non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to whom the defendant entrusted the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the defendant's livestock industry cooperative's name. The plaintiff held the defendant's personal seal impression and seal, so the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 3 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the defendant's.
Thus, unless the defendant does not confirm the act of unauthorized representation in this case, the defendant's claim in this case under the premise that the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the building in this case is valid, shall be dismissed as without merit. Thus, since the decision of original judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim and the judgment before it is unfair, it shall be revoked and the total costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff as the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Sohn-hee (Presiding Judge)