The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

According to the records, the land of this case is owned by the defendant Park Young-chul on the register, and the right to collateral security was created by the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik as a creditor, and thereafter, the right to collateral security was adjudicated to the plaintiff, who had been transferred to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, through the court of first and second instance, submitted the litigation data supporting that the regular order of the plaintiff was set up in the name of the defendant Park Young-ok as an expression agent of the defendant Park Young-ok, and that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the above regular order of the defendant Kim Jong-sik had a legitimate power of attorney. Accordingly, the defendants are deemed to have asserted that the plaintiff asserted the plaintiff's representation of the plaintiff's expression agent on the second date of pleading, and it is apparent that the plaintiff made a statement to the effect that the plaintiff would not have a reason for the plaintiff's letter of representation at the second date of pleading. Accordingly, in deciding on the process of acquiring the ownership of the land of this case, even if the court below acknowledged the above regular order of representation by the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not assert the facts.

In addition, the purport of the original adjudication that points out the place of the argument is that the establishment of the above right to collateral security can not be null and void only if there is a difference between the two different seals affixed to the certificate of seal imprint attached to the above application form and the human life attached to the certificate of seal imprint attached to the application form and the seal imprint attached to the above application form. The purport of the original adjudication that the establishment of the above right to collateral security cannot be null and void even if it is found that the seal imprints the seal imprints, and it is not clear that it differs from

We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the records, it is identical to the theory of the lawsuit that states that the defendant Park Jong-woo should be replaced with the plaintiff in the examination protocol of the witness as to the nearest marity such as the court below witness-type and the witness examination protocol of the same as the court below's witness-type, but it is not reasonable to argue that there is any error of law in the court below's finding it difficult for the plaintiff to make it difficult to write it as the plaintiff in the front and the context of the trial.

We examine the third ground for appeal.

In a case where an agent forges his seal and acts as an unauthorized agent in excess of the scope of his/her original right of representation, it is common that it is difficult for the other party to know whether his/her true seal is forged, barring any circumstance where the other party knows in advance his/her true seal, and thus, it is difficult to distinguish his/her true seal from the original seal of the same defendant as that of the non-party, the part of the original judgment pointing out the place of the argument, which merely means the above purport, and without any evidence that it is difficult to distinguish the forged seal into the original judgment, the original judgment is erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

In addition, according to the facts duly established by the court below, since the establishment registration of the right to collateral security was completed on November 8, 1962, registration of the right to collateral security was completed on the part of the court below. Thus, even if the non-party who was the right to collateral security on November 12, 1962, who was the right to collateral security, was notified of the fact that the right to collateral security was forged on November 12, 1962, the right to collateral security was notified of the non-party who was the right to collateral security at issue and the right to seal the defendant Park Jong-woo was forged, it is obvious that the above notification was made after the completion of the registration of the right to collateral security, and therefore, it is without merit that the decision should have deliberated on the good faith of the above

We examine the fourth ground for appeal.

If an agent forges his seal and conducts an unauthorized representation exceeding the original scope of his/her authority of representation, it does not interfere with recognizing the representation exceeding his/her authority even if the act of forging and uttering the seal constitutes a criminal act. Therefore, there is no error of law like the theory in the original judgment that recognized the representation of Nonparty regular representation.

In addition, the argument that the land of this case equivalent to 7 million won at the market price is substantially unfair legal act and invalid, which is substantially unfair legal act, is merely a new fact that is not asserted in the original trial, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, the defendants' appeals are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court