(a) A case where the expression agency recognizes as an expression for the creation of a security for borrowing money to a wife entrusted with factory management among additional overseas employment;

B. Criteria for determining whether the other party to the expression representation has justifiable grounds to believe that the other party has the right to represent the principal

A. In the event that the wife B borrowed money to raise funds for the operation of the factory with the delegation of the management right from Byung's overseas employment of Byung and completed provisional registration to secure it, the obligee A obtained a certificate of the personal seal impression for the establishment of the provisional registration of Byung from Eul, and if Eul deemed Eul to possess the personal seal impression of Byung, there is a justifiable reason for the obligee A to believe that Byung has the authority to act for Byung.

B. In general, the issue of whether the other party has justifiable grounds for believing that he/she has the authority to act on behalf of the principal should be objectively determined based on the concept of transaction from the circumstances at the time of transaction. Even if it was not revealed whether the money borrowed was used for the borrowed purpose, it cannot be deemed that there is no justifiable ground for believing that the expression agent has the authority to act on behalf of the principal.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Da310, 84Meu1283 Decided November 27, 1984

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant Kim Won-won, Attorney Kim Jong-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 86Na2136 delivered on April 24, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above non-party 1's provisional registration fee is null and void because the non-party 1, who was the wife, obtained the above 5,00,000 won loan from the defendant, possessed the plaintiff's seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression, etc. with the plaintiff's agent's loan as security, and the non-party 1's provisional registration fee for the above real estate constitutes an unauthorized agent's act without the plaintiff's consent. Further, the court below's determination that the above non-party 1's act constitutes an unauthorized agent's act in excess of the plaintiff's authority by taking into account various evidences at the time of the above 1978's request that the non-party 1 had a legitimate authority to operate the above factory on behalf of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 had no authority to operate the above company on behalf of the non-party 1 for the above 0-party 2's own reason for the above company's loan operation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)