[소유권이전등기말소][공1982.2.15.(674),169]
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 ground to believe that an unauthorized representative has the authority to do so shall be determined as at the time of the establishment of the sales contract, and the circumstances after the establishment of the sales contract shall not be considered. Thus, the mere fact that an unauthorized representative has delivered the certificate of seal impression and the power of attorney to the other party is insufficient to readily conclude that the other party has a justifiable ground to believe that he/she had the authority to do so, only after the sales contract was completed.
Article 126 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 80Da3247 Delivered on August 20, 1981
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Han-il Bank and one other
Seoul High Court Decision 80Na846 delivered on December 27, 1980
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the forest of this case was inherited by the plaintiff, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, was in charge of managing the forest of this case, and entered into a contract to sell 350,000 won the forest of this case to the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was authorized to dispose of the forest of this case, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was authorized to dispose of the forest of this case, and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the defendant's right of this case, were transferred to the above forest of this case.
However, considering whether there is a justifiable reason for the other party's belief that he has the power of representation in the check, it is reasonable to determine as at the time of the proxy act in principle as to whether the check agent is a system recognized for the stabilization of transaction. Thus, in this case, it shall be objectively determined at the time of establishment of the contract between Nonparty 1 and the above Kim Byung-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kun-k-k-k's.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)