A case in which it is deemed that there is a justifiable reason to believe that he has a power of representation for pro-friendly;

If pro-friendly person disposes of another piece of land owned by the same person on behalf of the same person and then purchased and managed the land in the name of the same person, and thereafter acquired it into the market site. In selling this land, if he participated in the seals and certificates of rights of the same person and delivered the certificates of rights to the purchaser, the purchaser is deemed to have a justifiable reason to believe that he has the right of representation to the pro-friendly person.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da915 delivered on June 12, 1973

Plaintiff

Won-si

Original Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (70A522)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff (Appellant) attorney shall:

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The Defendant (Appellant) shall remove each of the buildings indicated in the Schedule 2 to 7 on the ground No. 30 of the name-based land of the Plaintiff at the time of the first week, and remove each of the buildings indicated in the Schedule 1, 2, and 4 to 13 on the ground of No. 59 square meters in total, 59 square meters and No. 27 of the same site, and remove each of the buildings indicated in the Schedule 1, 2, and 145 square meters in total, such as the 286 square meters in total, 3-mark 7 and 145 square meters in the same site.

3. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by converting the amount of KRW 518 from September 3, 1957 to the amount of KRW 744 per annum from September 3, 1957, and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the next day of service to the day of full payment.

4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

5. Provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (3).

In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the land of 524 square meters, 143, 30, 143, 143, 27, 27, 27, 27, 144, 14, 14, 14, 200, 14, 14, 200, 14, 200, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201.

The plaintiff (appellant, hereinafter the plaintiff) entered the above 5-year market for the non-party 1 to the above 5-year market for the non-party 2 to the above 4-year market for the non-party 1 to the above 5-year market for the non-party 1 to the non-party 5-year market for the non-party 2 to acquire the above 4-year market for the non-party 1 to the non-party 5-year market for the non-party 2 to acquire the above 5-year market for the non-party 1 to the non-party 5-year market for the non-party 2 to acquire the above 5-year market for the non-party 5-year market for the non-party 1 to acquire the above 5-year market for the non-party 1 to the non-party 3-party 4 market for the non-party 1 to acquire the above 5-year market for the non-party 4-party 1 to acquire the above 5-year market for the non-party 2 party 1 to dispute.

Therefore, in full view of the following facts: (a) during wartime, Nonparty 1 purchased the land in the name of the Plaintiff as of August 18, 1952, after residing in the Plaintiff’s pro-friendly city and disposing of the land owned by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff; (b) after managing the land in this case and the land owned by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff on August 18, 1952; (c) around 1954, there was a fact that the part of this case was included in the land as the land site in the Southern-si market site in this case, and that there was a legitimate reason to believe that there was a power of representation or a right of representation to sell this case on behalf of the Plaintiff; (d) the testimony of Nonparty 2 at the court below and the witness at the court below at the trial; and (e) the testimony of Nonparty 1 at the court below and the witness at the court below at the trial; and (e) there was no evidence to recognize the fact that there was no other evidence to recognize the above portion of the Plaintiff’s seal and other rights.

According to the above facts of recognition, the sale of the part of the land of the non-party 1 is at least an act of acting as an agent in excess of authority, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the right of representation exists in the defendant's city. Thus, the defendant's city is legally purchasing the part of land of this case.

However, even if the contract of sale and purchase with the defendant for domestic affairs is valid, since the defendant Si did not complete the registration of ownership transfer for the part of the land of this case until December 1965 under Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Code, so it cannot be said that the above contract becomes null and void even if the acquisition of the above real right becomes null and void because it did not complete the registration of ownership transfer for the part of the land of this case until December 31, 1965 by the defendant Si. Thus, the above contract cannot be deemed null and void even if the acquisition of the above real right becomes null and void. Thus, if the defendant City takes over it legally and legally, and if it is recognized that the plaintiff has the right to claim for ownership transfer registration, it cannot be deemed that the possession for the part of the land of this case of this case of this case

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit on the premise that the defendant-si has no title to the land portion shall be dismissed without having to decide on the remainder of the lawsuit. The judgment of the original court that forms the conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

[Attachment List]

Judges Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jin-hee