(a) Where the representative forms a crime for which the representative's authority has been vested, and the principal is responsible for the legal doctrine of expression agency

B. Whether an act of expression by proxy in excess of the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act requires the same kind as a true power of representation

A. Even if the representative’s authority is deemed to constitute a crime, it does not interfere with the application of the legal doctrine of expression agency.

(b)an act in excess of the authority to apply the doctrine of expression representation does not require that the act is the same as the true power of representation held by the agent.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

00.00

Chuncheon Livestock Cooperatives

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na824 decided May 10, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

As a result, the defendant union, which is the principal, is liable as a result of the application of the legal doctrine of the expression agency because the representative's act constitutes a crime in the month of the representative's authority, it cannot be any obstacle to the principal's liability based on the legal doctrine of the expression agency, and since the check, which is a certificate of claim, is forged check, which is a certificate of claim, and the representative's act in excess of his authority does not confer his authority on the issuing of the check itself, so long as the representative's act of representation differs from his act of representation is true, there is no obstacle to the application of the legal doctrine of the expression agency. In addition, the judgment of the original judgment is also a forged certificate of claim and the act of the expression agency constitutes a criminal act, so it is interpreted that there is no obstacle to the judgment of the original judgment that there is no obstacle to the principal's act as a result of application of the legal doctrine

The Second Ground of Appeal

According to the facts established by the original judgment, it is interpreted as a conclusion of the original judgment that, to the extent of performing military supply duties with respect to military plants of the defendant association, the non-party is entitled to act on behalf of the defendant association, and so long as there exists such power of representation with respect to the financing of the above non-party, even if there is no power of representation, the act of expression and lending can be recognized as an act of expression and lending in this case, which is the act of financing. "The act of applying the legal principles on expression and lending" does not require that the act is the same as the true power of representation held by the person who performed the act outside the authority, and if there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party has such authority even if the act was the first juristic act with respect to the

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

Although the original judgment is somewhat inappropriate to explain the reasons that the act outside the authority of Nonparty Yellow Co., Ltd. constitutes an expression agency, the original judgment is not proper to recognize the representation of the expression agency in this case by the evidence that the act outside the authority of the subcontractor had already been within the scope of the execution of the military payment business by Nonparty Yellow Puls, and it cannot be recognized that there was an error of law in the process of its recognition.

In the end, there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or application of law in the original judgment that recognized the defendant's responsibility because it is merely to criticize the matters of exclusive authority of the court below concerning the determination of the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding.

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 4

The reason why the plaintiff in the original judgment had a legitimate reason to believe that the plaintiff in this case was making a difference with the defendant's business operation funds on behalf of the defendant's association is interpreted as the plaintiff's act of free fault, and the plaintiff's act of free negligence is not recognized by the evidence in the original judgment. Thus, the argument is nothing more than to criticize the matters of the court below's exclusive authority on the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding, and it cannot be concluded that there was a negligence on the plaintiff because the plaintiff did not make a transaction through the post-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-constation,

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-Jap (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum Magman Mag-ri