Whether the right of representation for the act of disposal of real estate can be recognized as the basic right of representation in recognizing the representation for the act of disposal of real estate.

In the event that the Plaintiff disposed of the Plaintiff’s real estate beyond the authority of Nonparty A as the Plaintiff gave Nonparty A the right of representation for Nonparty B’s fidelity guarantee to Nonparty A, the Plaintiff is liable for the disposal of Nonparty A’s real estate in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency where Nonparty A had the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression, certificate of seal impression, and certificate of seal impression, and was living in the building subject to disposal.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Round Korea Development Bank

Gain Landscaping

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court (77Gahap459) (Decision 77Gahap459)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant will implement the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu District Court No. 94926, Dec. 2, 1976, and each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the same registry office No. 28706, which was received on April 26, 1977, as to the plaintiff's 686 large 48 square meters, its ground brick 48 square meters, and apapap 20 square meters 1 unit 20 square meters 1 unit 20, 64 square meters 1 unit 1 unit 20, and 3-24 square meters 1 unit 20.

Judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant is sought.

With respect to real estate stated in the purport of the claim, there is no dispute between the parties that provisional registration and transfer of ownership have been made by the plaintiff in the future of the defendant.

The plaintiff's legal representative is the owner of the plaintiff's above real estate. The plaintiff's legal representative obtained a certificate of the plaintiff's seal impression, stolen the plaintiff's seal and the right to registration of the above real estate by borrowing money from the defendant, and registered it as security. Thus, it is argued that this is null and void. Thus, the plaintiff's legal representative's statement Nos. 2 and 3, the witness's testimony, and the result of the examination of criminal records of the court below (except for the second part's trust), which correspond to the above plaintiff's legal representative's argument, are not trusted in the party's opinion, and there is no other evidence to support the above plaintiff's principal's fact. If the above plaintiff's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's right to registration of the plaintiff's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's legal representative's right.

Thus, the plaintiff is equivalent to the right of representation of the fidelity guarantee for fertility and the act of disposal of the above real estate beyond his authority is conducted. In such a case, the defendant is responsible for the act of disposal of the above real estate in early stage in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Code, because the decentralization holds the plaintiff's certificate of the right to registration of the above real estate and the certificate of the seal impression and the certificate of the seal impression are also directly living in the above building, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the plaintiff has the right to dispose of the above real estate on his behalf.

Therefore, since each of the above registrations in the name of the defendant is valid registration in conformity with the substance of the right, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the principal registration premised on its invalidation is dismissed unfairly. Therefore, the original judgment with the party member's conclusion is just and without merit, and the appeal cost is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the losing party.

Judge Lee Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)