Requirements for establishing an expression agency in excess of the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act and negligence of a third party who is the other party;

Since there is a justifiable reason to believe that a third party has the right of representation in the check agent, it is also included in the fact that there is no negligence of the third party, it is not necessary to judge even the negligence of the third party.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Nowon-doing materials

Gyeong-nam Corporate Corporation

Daejeon District Court Decision 62Na1125 delivered on June 13, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Of the grounds of appeal on the part of the defendant's agent Gangnam-gu, the court below applied the legal principle on the expression agent, on the following grounds: (a) the non-party No. 1 submitted a report that the non-party No. 1 was an on-site agent of the construction site of the building in the public education college which the defendant company was entrusted to the defendant company; and (b) the this line appears to have the authority to purchase the materials at the construction site of the construction site; and (c) although the right to use money from others to purchase the materials is not granted from the defendant company in the real place, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle on the plaintiff's authority to believe that the right to use money from others to purchase the materials is within the boundaries of the vessel; (d) although the non-party No. 1 used the seal No. 1, which is the loan certificate, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the non-party No. 1, which is the loan certificate, was forged by the plaintiff, and even if the authenticity of the No. 1, the plaintiff's. 2, not negligent in the plaintiff's fault with the plaintiff.

In the expression agency in excess of the representative authority, it is necessary to judge only that the third party was the bona fide third party in order to assume the liability of the representative, and that there was a justifiable reason to believe that he had the authority to act on behalf of the representative, and that the third party was the negligence of the third party, and it is not necessary to judge that the third party was the negligence of the third party. This is because the third party's good faith and the third party has a justifiable reason to believe that he was the authority to act on behalf of the representative, and it is also true that the third party did not act on the part of the third party. However, in light of the reasoning of the judgment below, it is clear that the facts explained to the same purpose were explained in substitution, and it is obvious that the court below did not decide on the existence of the negligence as stated in the opinion, and the measures that the court below recognized that Gap evidence No. 1 was prepared by the mooring and used for the construction of this money by lending money from the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant company are legitimate, and therefore, it is reasonable to establish the legal principle without merit.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak, Red Mag-Jak, Live-Jak, Live-P