The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the loan contract of this case is null and void by a bilateral representation (ground of appeal No. 4)

A. Article 108 of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 471 of Feb. 22, 1958 and enforced Jan. 1, 1960; hereinafter the same) provides that the same legal act cannot be a representative of both parties, but it does not apply to the act for which the principal first consented.

나. 원심은, 원고가 1938. 5. 18. 구황실재산을 관리하던 이왕직장관(李王職長官)에게 이 사건 토지를 무상으로 학교부지로 사용할 수 있도록 승낙해 달라는 신청을 하였고, 이에 이왕직장관이 1938. 5. 20. 위 토지의 사용을 승낙함으로써, 같은 날 원고와 구황실 사이에 의용민법 제593조가 규정한 사용대차계약(이하 ‘이 사건 사용대차계약’이라고 한다)이 체결된 사실, 당시 S가 원고의 이사장과 구황실을 대리하는 이왕직장관을 겸직하면서 위 사용대차계약을 쌍방대리에 의하여 체결한 사실 등을 인정하였다.

On the premise of such factual basis, the lower court determined that the above loan agreement was valid on the grounds that the act of both parties of S can be deemed to have been based on the prior permission of both the Plaintiff and the former Yellow Room on the following grounds.

The plaintiff is a foundation established on the basis of the contribution act of the Gwanak-gu Office that was seeking school establishment.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant loan agreement, L, representing the Yellow Room, sold a separate land of the old Yellow Dust to the Plaintiff.

After the conclusion of the loan agreement of this case, the Plaintiff operated the school on the land of this case so that it would correspond to the original purpose of the establishment by leaving school buildings on the land of this case, and did not perform any act or declaration of intention against it.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant statutes and legal principles.