[소유권이전등기말소][집29(2)민,277;공1981.10.15.(666) 14291]
In the case of an expression agency in excess of authority, the time to determine whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that the agent has such authority.
The issue of whether there is a justifiable reason to believe that an agent has the authority to act as an agent in excess of his/her authority should be determined as at the time of the act of acting as an agent. Thus, the mere fact that an unauthorized agent presented to the other party the registration right certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, power of attorney, certificate of sale, etc. in his/her name only when the remaining amount is received after the sales contract was made cannot be deemed a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has the authority to act as
Article 126 of the Civil Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant
Daegu High Court Decision 80Na965 delivered on November 27, 1980
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 was authorized to sell the land to the non-party 2 as the non-party 1's agent on July 13, 1978, because the non-party 1 was divided into the non-party 1's name and the non-party 1 was authorized to sell the land to the non-party 2 as the plaintiff's agent at the end of May 1978, and held that the non-party 1 was a legal act other than his authority, and that the non-party 1 was not authorized to sell the land under the non-party 3's name and the non-party 1 was not authorized to sell the land to the non-party 1's agent at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and it is hard to find that the non-party 1 was authorized to sell the land in the non-party 1's name and the non-party 2's agent's name and the non-party 1 had the right to represent the plaintiff.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged that the non-party 1 had the basic power of attorney as to the procedure for dividing the land of this case at the time of the sale and purchase contract of this case, and that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the right of attorney to sell the land of this case exists to the non-party 1, just because of the above circumstances, there is an error of law in violation of the rules of evidence recognizing facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to expression representation beyond the authority without evidence, and such an
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court, Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)