1. The sales contract is established by an agreement between the parties on the transfer of the property right by the seller and the buyer's payment of the price in consideration of the agreement between the parties to transfer the property right and the other party to pay the price (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39594, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.).

On the other hand, the right of representation can be granted by an implied expression of intent without an explicit expression of intent, and there is also a case where the granting of power of representation is inferred by de facto neglect, such as neglecting the right of representation with the knowledge of an act with the appearance of an agent, even though a certain person is aware of the act with the appearance of an agent.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant granted the Nonparty the right of representation to conclude the instant sales contract.

① At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Nonparty did not have the power of representation, seal imprint, and seal imprint. The Plaintiff entered into a large amount of sales contract without directly verifying the Defendant’s intent. Meanwhile, it is very exceptional that the Defendant, while entering into a large amount of sales contract, granted the right of representation to the Nonparty, who did not have any delivery or main text, once prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

② The Nonparty appears to play a role as a broker, such as avoiding the purchase price between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

③ Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant had an approximate approach to the purchase price, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had an anticipated situation to determine the detailed matters through additional consultation and complete a sales contract.

④ It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant delegated the authority to conclude a contract with the same content as the instant sales contract solely based on the fact that the Defendant informed the Nonparty of his account number at the aforementioned stage. Rather, there is sufficient possibility that the Defendant was able to think that the Plaintiff would have received the deposit money to prove that the intent to conclude the instant sales contract was reliable.

3. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following.

① The Defendant residing in Seoul was aware of the Nonparty residing in Jeju for several years in order to sell the instant land at KRW 3.3 billion at the time of Seopopopo-si. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Nonparty sought the purchase price of the instant land, and the Nonparty became only the Plaintiff who was willing to purchase the instant land.

② On August 6, 2014, the Nonparty known the Plaintiff’s intent to purchase in three instances with the Defendant, who visited Shed France, and the Defendant informed the Nonparty of his account number as text messages for the receipt of down payment. In addition, the Defendant expressed that the Nonparty may have to reduce the purchase price from the purchase price to the KRW 10 million.

③ On August 7, 2014, the Nonparty: (a) drafted the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s agent; and (b) the Plaintiff entered into the sales contract with the Plaintiff with the purchase price of KRW 3.29 billion; and (c) the Plaintiff wired the down payment of KRW 330 million to the said account known to the Defendant. Meanwhile, the instant sales contract states that one of the special terms and conditions stated that “the mid-term and the remainder shall be set again after consultation with the seller.”

④ On the same day, the Nonparty sent a text message to the Defendant to the effect that “the contract amount of KRW 30 million was deposited, and the contract was to be prepared again if the Nonparty returned to Korea.” The Nonparty thereafter sent a text message to the Defendant that “the contract amount of KRW 30 million was returned to Korea, and approximately KRW 7 minutes and approximately 26 minutes were returned

⑤ On August 11, 2014, the day after the Defendant returned to Korea, the Nonparty was issued the instant sales contract, or the Nonparty did not raise any objection to the amount of the purchase price at the time, or the amount of the sales contract at the time, and the Nonparty’s agent was indicated in the instant sales contract. Rather, the Defendant pointed out that the land should be excluded due to an error in the subject matter of the sale as indicated in the sales contract, and that the amount of the intermediate payment and the timing of payment would have been adjusted.

(6) On August 12, 2014, the Defendant sent the intention of cancelling the contract to the Plaintiff via the Nonparty, and the Plaintiff’s person who was demanded by the Plaintiff to refund a double amount of the down payment starts to assert that he did not confer the right of representation on the instant sales contract to the Nonparty.

B. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even though the Defendant did not explicitly expressly express his/her intent to confer the right of representation on the Nonparty or specifically instruct the details of the sales contract, it is highly probable to deem that the Defendant granted the right of representation to enter into a contract to sell the instant land in KRW 3.29 billion.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of unity between the parties to a contract for the establishment of a sales contract, granting power of representation, etc. and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)