(a) Method of ratification of an execution, among notarial deeds defective of power of representation;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the execution certificate prepared by the commission of an unauthorized representative was a valid title of debt by an implied ratification of the person himself/herself and there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ratification as referred to in Paragraph A or in the incomplete hearing

A. The declaration of intent of recognition of execution on a notarial deed is the litigation by a notary public as the sole declaration of intent of the debtor against a joint law office or notary public, which was made by the method of sexual rule, and thus the declaration of intention of ratification on the recognition of execution among notarial deeds defective, and the declaration of intention of ratification on the notarial deeds should be made by a notary public against a joint law office or notary public in a notarized manner. As long as there is ratification without such a method, the title of debt cannot be made effective, regardless of the fact that the debtor bears the obligation under the substantive law.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the execution certificate prepared by the commission of an unauthorized representative was a valid title of debt by an implied ratification of the person himself/herself and there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ratification as referred to in Paragraph A or in the incomplete hearing

(b) Article 132 of the Civil Code, Article 519 subparagraph 4(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 183 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Meu621 Decided February 8, 1983 (Gong1983, 494)

Plaintiff

Jung-jin (Attorney Hong-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na3576 delivered on November 16, 1990

After destroying the original judgment, the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below found that the above non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's mother, stolen the plaintiff's seal impression and collected at par value 2,400,000 won, and one promissory note issued by the plaintiff who is the plaintiff's name and one power of attorney to prepare a notarial deed as to the payment of the above promissory note to the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's right of attorney, were forged, and delivered it to the above lele-ju, and entrusted the above le-ju's office with the above le-ju's non-party 1, which is the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1, who was the plaintiff's agent, to be subject to the above 6-party 1, 1985's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's claim for the above auction procedure is invalid.

However, the declaration of acceptance on a notarial deed is an action by a notary public as the sole declaration of intent by the debtor to a joint law office or notary public in accordance with the procedure of sexual rule, and it is correct to say that the notary public who prepared the notarial deed should make the declaration of ratification of acceptance among the defective notarial deeds should make it a notarized method to the joint law office or notary public (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu621, Feb. 8, 1983). Thus, it cannot be said that the title of debt cannot be valid even if the debtor bears an obligation under the substantive law. Thus, just on the ground of the reasoning of the reasoning of the court below's reasoning, it is recognized as an ratification of a promissory note obligation as indicated on the notarial deed, and separate from the plaintiff's burden of debt to the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the notarial deed of this case is valid for the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's second appeal against the plaintiff's assertion of cancellation of the notarial deed of this case cannot be viewed as an action against the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the execution certificate of this case was made by the commission of an unauthorized representative and thus null and void, but the plaintiff implicitly ratified the act of disposal by the unentitled person for reasons stated in its explanation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the ratification of the execution acceptance in a notarial deed made by the commission of an unauthorized representative, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the argument on this point is with merit.

Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)