The case holding that the father's act of issuing a seal imprint certificate and a certificate of seal impression to the children to secure the obligation of the children, including the right of return, has granted all the power of representation for debt security.

In a case where a father delivers a seal imprint certificate and a seal imprint certificate to children to secure their obligations, the case holding that the establishment registration of a neighboring establishment that was made by a third party who received the said seal imprint certificate and a seal imprint certificate from them is valid, on the ground that the father granted to children all the rights of representation for securing obligations, including the right to uniforms, on the ground that the third party who received such seal imprint certificate

Articles 120 and 126 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Kim Byung-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 93Na6065 delivered on January 27, 1995

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff, is running a sales business on the market; (b) from early 192 to early 200, the non-party 2 loaned a promissory note under the name of the non-party 3, who is the plaintiff's wife; and (c) was unable to deposit a promissory note at the due date when the non-party 2 was entering the place of the payment on September 26, 1992; (d) upon the request of the above non-party 2, the issue date and the due date under the name of the father of the non-party 2, which are 120,000,000 won which are issued in blank; (e) the non-party 3, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of the plaintiff 120,000 won, which were delivered to the non-party 2, and (e) the above non-party 31,000,0000 won,000 won.

2. However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff consented to the provision of the real estate in this case as security and delivered the certificate of personal seal impression to the non-party 1, who is his own son. The above non-party 1 obtained a loan to the above non-party 2 as security and made a loan to the above non-party 3 as security, and the above certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression are entrusted to the above non-party 1. Thus, the plaintiff's act of not offering the real estate in this case as security against whom the non-party 1, who is his own son, constitutes the above non-party 1's intent to offer the real estate in this case as security, and it is reasonable to view that the non-party 1's act of not giving the right of representation to the non-party 2 within the scope of this case's right of representation, which affected the plaintiff 1's above right of representation and the plaintiff 1's act of not granting the right of representation to the non-party 1 in this case's name.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)