The case affirming the establishment of a expression agency in excess of authority where a certificate of seal imprint issued for a joint and several surety for a liability for indemnity under a guarantee insurance contract for the purchase of a small truck by installment, and a certificate of seal imprint certificate issued for a joint and several surety for a liability for indemnity under a guarantee insurance contract for the purchase

The case affirming the establishment of an expression agency in excess of authority where a certificate of seal imprint issued for a joint and several surety for a joint and several surety for a small truck with a maximum of KRW 4,000,000 and a certificate of seal imprint issued for a joint and several surety for a joint and several surety for a liability for indemnity under a guarantee insurance contract which provides for a joint and several surety for a joint and several surety for a liability for indemnity under a guarantee insurance contract which provides for a 4,00,000 won

Article 126 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na41830 delivered on June 28, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the non-party 1 and his wife, who are engaged in the business of cremation by macroficing evidence, purchased one copy of the above certificate of seal impression with the non-party 1 and obtained income by entering the non-party 1 joint and several surety company, and purchased a f0,000,000 won or more for the non-party 1's birth and delivery of the above defendant 1's delivery of 4,00,000 won for the purchase of small trucks for the purpose of cremation sales business, and determined that the defendants' joint and several surety's signature and seal impression was not issued by the defendants with one certificate of seal impression affixed as "joint and several surety" for the above acts of purchasing the above 60,000,000 won for the above fics and joint and several surety company's signature and seal impression affixed to the defendant 1's above fics and joint and several surety company's employees' signature and seal impression affixed to the defendant 50,000, respectively.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, it is reasonable to find the facts of the court below as well as to determine the establishment of an expression agency beyond the authority (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da16009 delivered on April 23, 1991). There is no error of law by misunderstanding facts due to misunderstanding of the cooking of evidence, or by misunderstanding of legal principles as to the expression agency.

The Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 86Meu754 delivered on September 8, 1987) that the theory of the lawsuit is a party member is different from this case, and it is not appropriate to refer this case to the case.

그리고 이 사건 보증보험약정서(갑 제2호증) 말미에 있는 ＂본인(보험계약자)과 아래 연대보증인은 본 보증보험약정서의 각 조항을 충분히 이해하고 이에 서명날인합니다”라는 문귀는 그 자체의 표현이나 위 약정의 내용에서 볼 때 그것이 원고 회사의 직원들에 대한 업무지침의 일종으로서 보험계약자나 연대보증인들의 진정한 의사를 직접 확인하도록 지시하고 있는 것으로는 볼 수 없으므로 이에 의하여 원심의 표현대리 성립의 판단에 소론과 같은 잘못이 있다 할 수 없다. 논지는 모두 이유 없다.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)