Where a loan broker has concluded a loan for consumption and a contract to establish a security right on behalf of both the lender and the borrower, the case holding that the borrower's repayment made to the loan broker is valid.

The case holding that, in case where a bond brokerage business operator is engaged in the bond brokerage business in such manner as to make a loan for consumption and to make a contract for security on behalf of both parties who are not who are not who are the other party and trust the other party to the loan and to make a contract for loan for consumption and to establish a security right on behalf of the other party, the bond brokerage business operator shall act as the representative of the lender when the loan for consumption is concluded, and against the other party, the agent who is granted the power to conclude a loan contract for consumption from the lender shall act as the representative of the lender when the loan for consumption is concluded, and the agent who is granted the power to execute the loan for consumption from the lender shall also be deemed to have the right to receive the repayment from the borrower as provided in the loan for consumption, unless there are any special circumstances.

Article 114 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da425 Decided October 30, 1979 (Gong1980, 12334), Supreme Court Decision 80Da1756 Decided February 24, 1981 (Gong1981, 13732), Supreme Court Decision 92Da39365 Decided January 15, 1993 (Gong193, 707)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na43517 delivered on January 22, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were in violation of the contract for lending money and the contract for establishing a security right on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's behalf for the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were in violation of the contract. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were in violation of the contract for lending money and the contract for establishing a security right on the non-party 2's behalf of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were in violation of the contract for lending money and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were in violation of the contract for lending money and the non-party 2's request to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 was in violation of the contract for lending money from the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were in violation of the contract for lending money to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not in violation of the contract.

If a loan brokerage business is conducted in the form of non-party 1's business, as recognized by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the loan broker serves as an agent of the borrower for the lender when concluding a loan for consumption, and that the borrower acts as an agent of the lender for the lender, and that the agent granted the power to execute the loan for consumption from the lender has the authority to receive the repayment from the borrower as provided for in the loan for consumption, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the borrower's repayment to the loan broker is valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Da425, Oct. 30, 1979; 80Da1756, Feb. 24, 1981). If the facts were acknowledged by the court below in this case, the bond broker has the authority to receive the loan from the non-party 2 for the plaintiff, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's loan against the non-party 1.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)