[소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1976민(2),215]
statement of the representative’s expression representative where the principal is the best;
Since an expression agent in excess of authority explicitly or explicitly expresses that it is an act for the principal, and it is established when the other party to the juristic act knows that the act for the principal is an act for the principal, and thus, it cannot be recognized as an expression agent in case where the agent pretends to be the principal and the other party concludes a contract with the knowledge
Article 126 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 77Da1669 Decided March 28, 1978 (Dissenting Purport 11743 Decided September 28, 1976) (Supreme Court Decision 26Da1629 Decided March 28, 1978)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court (74Gahap70 delivered on July 1, 200)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
On February 26, 1974, the Defendant: (a) received support from the Daejeon District Court for the Daejeon District Court on February 26, 1974; (b) performed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 19, 1974; (c) the registration of transfer of ownership on February 19, 1974; and (d) the receipt of support on February 3468 on the same day for the real estate in the attached list No. 2; and (c) performed each procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The fact that the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant's title, such as the entries in the list Nos. 1 and 2, and 50 through 54, Gap's certificate No. 1 and 2, Gap's certificate No. 3, Gap's certificate No. 4, Gap's certificate No. 6, Eul's certificate No. 7, No. 8-4, Eul's certificate No. 7, Eul's certificate No. 8-6, the plaintiff's transfer of ownership to the above 0-mentioned land was not registered, and the plaintiff's transfer of ownership was registered with the defendant No. 1 to 2,50 through 54, and there was no dispute between the parties, and the defendant No. 2, the defendant's transfer of ownership was registered with the above 0-mentioned seal No. 1 and No. 60-7, and the plaintiff's right to request sale of the above 1,000-mentioned land as the evidence of the court below's conclusion that the plaintiff's transfer of ownership was registered with the defendant No. 2.
According to the above facts, each registration of the above registration of the defendant's name concerning the land of this case shall be cancelled as the registration of invalidation of cause completed without the plaintiff's intention who is the person responsible for registration, and since the defendant was a person who had concluded a sales contract on behalf of the plaintiff when the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party 7, the defendant is an expression agent in excess of his authority, even if not granted the right to represent the sale of the land of this case, and the plaintiff was a legitimate reason to believe that the above non-party has the right to dispose of the land of this case. Thus, although the ownership transfer registration of the defendant's name is a legitimate motive corresponding to the substantive relation, the expression agent in excess of his authority explicitly or implicitly indicates that the agent's act is an act on behalf of the plaintiff, and it is established if the other party knows that the non-party 4 was the plaintiff, not the plaintiff's agent, and the defendant, the other party, was the plaintiff himself, the above non-party, the above non-party was formed on behalf of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is justified, and the judgment of the original court that forms the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment Omission]
Judges Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)