[소유권이전등기말소][집18(2)민,136]
The meaning and justifiable reason of an agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.
An agent referred to in this Article shall be collectively referred to as a person who can act on behalf of himself/herself in a lawful manner, regardless of the circumstances concerning the granting of his/her power of representation. Therefore, it is not limited to a person who has been granted his/her power of representation directly by himself/herself.
Article 126 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2187 delivered on April 10, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2187 delivered on April 10, 1970
The appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
Although the court below acknowledged that it was a provision for protecting the third party acting in good faith in accordance with the above legal principles as to the above legal reasoning, the above non-party 1 did not have the right of representation on the non-party 1's land under the evidence adopted by the non-party 1's court below's ruling that the non-party 1 did not have the right of representation on the non-party 6's land, and it was not clear that the non-party 1 had the right of representation on the non-party 1's land, which was registered in the name of the plaintiff and the non-party 1's real estate purchase on the non-party 1's land, and that the non-party 1 had the right of representation on the non-party 1's land, and the non-party 1 had the right of representation on the non-party 6's land, and it was not clear that the non-party 1 had the right of representation on the non-party 1's land under the above legal principles as to the non-party 1's purchase and sale of the above land.
2. As the representative under Article 126 of the Civil Code refers to a person who is able to act on behalf of himself/herself as a whole, regardless of the circumstances leading up to the granting of his/her power of representation, and under the view that he/she would act on his/her own as a person who has been granted his/her power of representation (the so-called original representative so-called the so-called original representative), there was an error of law in holding that the said legal representation relationship has been established between the non-party 1 and the plaintiff, who has been granted his/her power to sell the disputed land again from the plaintiff as stated in the original judgment, as stated above, as the original judgment did.
Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu