[1] Whether an agent granted the authority to conclude a contract has the right to dispose of the contract, such as rescission of the contract, and to receive the other party's intent (negative)

[2] Whether a representation by expression under Article 126 of the Civil Code is established even in a case where there is no basic power of representation at the time of a juristic act (negative)

[3] In a case where an expression agent is acknowledged under Article 129 of the Civil Code, whether a representation by an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Code may be established when there is an act of representation exceeding the authority of an expression agent (affirmative)

[4] The standard for determining whether the other party to the expression representation has justifiable grounds to believe that the other party to the expression representation has the right of representation

[1] Articles 114, 118, and 128 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 126 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 126 and 129 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 126 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 4290Da461, 462 Decided October 21, 1957 (Gong1987, 865) Supreme Court Decision 96Da51271 Decided April 28, 1987 (Gong1997, 1183) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 79Da234 Decided March 27, 197 (Gong1979, 11903) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 72Da1631 Decided July 30, 197 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 69Da2149 Decided February 10, 197 / [4] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da81478 decided April 27, 1977; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da814785 Decided 287, 207

Masung Comprehensive Environment Corporation

Defendant (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na102521 decided October 9, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the power of representation

If an agent who has been granted the power of representation for a contract does an authorized juristic act, the legal relation which caused the power of representation shall, in principle, be terminated after the objective is attained, and the power of representation conferred by a juristic act is extinguished upon the termination of the underlying legal relation (Article 128 of the Civil Act). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the agent has the authority to take any disposition, such as rescission of the contract concluded by the agent for the contract, and receive the other party’s intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4290Da461, 462, Oct. 21, 1957; 85Meu971, Apr. 28, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the contract amount was cancelled by delivery of a copy of the complaint and the defendant's claim for the return of KRW 60 million on behalf of the non-party to the contract, on the ground that it is hard to view that the non-party's representative director was entitled to return the contract amount of KRW 60 million on behalf of the non-party to the contract, and that the non-party was entitled to return the contract amount of KRW 50 million on behalf of the non-party to the contract, on the ground that the non-party was not entitled to return the contract amount of KRW 50 million on behalf of the non-party to the contract, on the ground that the non-party was not entitled to return the contract amount of KRW 60 million on behalf of the non-party to the contract, on the ground that the non-party was not entitled to return the contract amount of KRW 50 million on behalf of the non-party to the contract.

The above judgment of the court below is just in light of the records as it is based on the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of power of representation, the principle of pleading, or the misconception of facts due to

Supreme Court Decision 62Da508 delivered on October 18, 1962, and Supreme Court Decision 69Da548 delivered on July 22, 1969, cited in the ground of appeal, are different cases, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the expression representation

An expression agent in excess of the authority stipulated in Article 126 of the Civil Act is established in cases where a person who currently holds the right of representation has exceeded his/her authority, and it does not constitute cases where a person who does not have any right of representation at present has already held the right of representation in the past (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da1631, Jul. 30, 1973; 79Da234, Mar. 27, 1979). Meanwhile, in cases where a former power of representation is extinguished and it is recognized as an expression agent pursuant to Article 129 of the Civil Act, if there is an act of representation exceeding the authority of the expression agent, the expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act may be established (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da2149, Feb. 10, 1970). In addition, in order to realize the effect of an expression agent, the other party's act of representation shall be determined as objectively and objectively as a person who has the right of representation (see Supreme Court Decision 1787Da7.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense as to the expression agent on the ground that it is difficult to believe that the defendant has a right to receive the contract amount of this case on behalf of the plaintiff in the process of establishing and resolving the contract amount of this case and the contract amount of 200 million won, merely because the non-party took part in the process of establishing and resolving the contract amount of this case and the contract amount of 200 million won, since the non-party did not have the right to receive the refund of the contract amount of this case on behalf of the plaintiff. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles as to "justifiable cause" in the expression agent as

The Supreme Court Decision 97Da9895 Decided July 8, 1997 cited in the ground of appeal is inappropriate to invoke the case as it differs from this case.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to ratification

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of ratification on the ground that the defendant's receipt of KRW 200 million from the plaintiff pursuant to a separate contract for the collection of scrap metal and the issuance of a promissory note of KRW 200 million at par value with the non-party as the beneficiary. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not raise any objection despite the non-party's knowledge of the fact that the non-party was stated as the addressee, and even if the plaintiff did not raise any objection, such circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the plaintiff ratified the non-party's non-party's act of receiving the contract amount of KRW 60 million as the non-party's non-party's act of receiving the contract amount of KRW 60 million. In light of the records,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)