beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following "2."
(1) The grounds for appeal by the Defendant do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance trial, and each evidence submitted in the first instance trial, even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, is presented to this court, the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are deemed legitimate). The appeal by the Defendant, from the fifth to sixth, shall be dismissed as follows.
2) As to this, the Defendant did not grant the right of representation to G and H couple, and since G and H couple did not engage in a legal act in the name of the Defendant, it should be determined whether the Defendant acted in good faith with respect to the fraudulent act on the basis of the standards of G and H couple. The Defendant asserted that, at the time of the establishment of the instant right of collateral security, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the obligor A and B were only liable for the repayment of the deposit for lease of two to four households in addition to the deposit for the first priority right of collateral security in the instant multi-family house, and that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he was liable for the repayment of the deposit for lease of several hundreds of households.
However, it is reasonable to view that an agent is not required to express his/her intention as an agent, but can act in his/her own name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da67, May 9, 1963). In cases where the agent does not require processing by himself/herself due to the nature of a juristic act which is the object of the agent, it is reasonable to view that the agent has implied consent with regard to appointment of a sub-agent unless the principal expresses his/her intention not to act on behalf of himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da30690, Jan. 26, 1996). When a juristic act is performed by an agent at issue as a fraudulent act, the agent