A case where a person recognized an expression agent after the lapse of his/her power of representation because he/she had his/her seal imprint and certificate.

Despite the absence of any power of representation due to the extinguishment of the power of representation, joint and several surety act that pretends to hold a seal imprint and a certificate of seal imprint as if there exists any right of representation is a right of representation. However, in relation to the other party in good faith, it is an expression representation act after the lapse of the right of representation and its effect

Article 129 of the Civil Act

Seoul Trust Bank, Inc.

motor vehicle model heat

1. The decision of provisional seizure against a party member on July 27, 1983 shall be authorized with respect to a case of application for provisional seizure against immovables 83Ka23057; and

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent;

The applicant has sought the same judgment as the disposition, and the respondent shall revoke the provisional attachment decision made on July 27, 1983 with respect to the case of provisional attachment application against real estate by a party member 83Ka23057.

The request for provisional attachment by the applicant is dismissed.

The cost of lawsuit is assessed against the applicant.

The provisional attachment decision of this case was made on July 27, 1983 by a member of a union to provisionally attach real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 owned by the respondent to the respondent on the basis of an application for the preservation of the execution of loan claims against the respondent of 83Ka23057 (No. 83Ka23057). First of all, as to whether the applicant has the right to be compensated by the provisional attachment decision of this case against the respondent, it was examined whether the applicant has the right to be compensated by the provisional attachment decision of this case, Gap No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 1500 (Additional Agreement), No. 3, No. 1,000 (Certificate of Raw Materials Purchase) and the above evidence No. 1 to 100,000 won was made to the applicant for the above provisional attachment agreement, and the applicant for the above provisional attachment agreement was made on the aggregate of 80,000,000 won for the export bill of this case between the applicant and the defendant.

Furthermore, on July 2, 1982, the applicant entered into a trade agreement between the applicant and the non-applicant company for a trust bill loan, and on behalf of the respondent, the non-applicant company was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the obligation to be borne by the applicant due to the transaction under the above agreement on behalf of the applicant. On July 2, 1983, the applicant claimed that the non-applicant company delayed the payment of principal and interest from August 2 of the same year. Thus, the applicant asserted that the non-applicant company should delay the payment of principal and interest, and thus, the applicant stated the non-applicant's certificate No. 6 (bill of Exchange), No. 7 (bill of Promissory Notes), Gap evidence No. 15-11 (Director of Raw Materials Purchase Fund), Type No. 15-3, Book No. 11 of the above agreement on behalf of the applicant, and the non-applicant company's name and seal No. 170 million won before the date of application for joint and several surety loan agreement.

Meanwhile, in full view of the statement of No. 1-2, No. 3, No. 16-2, No. 16-2 (written collateral agreement) and the whole purport of the pleading as to the testimony of the above witness model, the non-applicant type of the attached Table No. 2, which was owned by the Respondent No. 27 April 1982, concluded a joint and several surety contract with the applicant as the representative with the applicant, the non-applicant and the non-applicant company as the debtor, with the maximum amount of debt amount of 200 million won as to the above debt, at the same time as the above type of joint and several surety contract was concluded with the above type of a joint and several surety contract with the above Respondent No. 1-1, No. 2, No. 3 (each certified copy of the register), and No. 16-2, No. 16-2, and the testimony of the above witness model, regardless of the fact that the Respondent type had the right of representation at the time of the above application was already granted by the Respondent, the above 282, and the above type of the 197th.

Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the respondent bears the joint and several liability amounting to 290,800,000 won (288,000,000 won + 500,000 won) in total to the applicant and the interest corresponding thereto.

As to this, the respondent alleged that the applicant has the right to claim the performance of the guaranteed obligation against the respondent under the joint and several surety contract between the applicant and the non-applicant on December 4, 1981 and the joint and several surety contract between the applicant and the non-applicant on the date of the initial application for provisional seizure, but the applicant changed the respondent's right to claim the performance of the guaranteed obligation against the respondent on July 24, 1982 and the Respondent on the joint and several surety contract of the same date. This assertion is unlawful as the use of provisional seizure, so the applicant has the obligation to be borne by the respondent on the grounds of the initial application for provisional seizure and the Respondent on December 4, 1981 due to the agreement between the applicant and the non-applicant on the joint and several surety contract of the non-applicant on the same date as the 2nd anniversary of the date of application for provisional seizure agreement of the above 197th anniversary of the date of application for provisional seizure agreement of the above case.

Meanwhile, in light of the contents of each of the above joint and several sureties loan 10,000 won which the applicant submitted as supporting materials for the guaranteed right at the time of the application for provisional seizure, it is evident that the applicant applied for provisional seizure 280,000 won in total as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 list No. 880,000 won in the above loan No. 1 list No. 480,000 won in the agreement and joint and several sureties's loan No. 2480,000 won in the above separate and several sureties's loan No. 1979,000 won in the above agreement No. 1984,000 won in the above agreement and 70,000 won in the above joint and several sureties's loan No. 1974,000 won in the above agreement and 80,0000 won in the above agreement and 194,000 won in the above joint and several sureties's loan No.

In addition, in order for the respondent to secure his obligation to the applicant of the non-applicant, the respondent concluded a joint and several surety agreement No. 2 with the applicant as a collateral on the attached Table No. 2, which is owned by the respondent, and set up a collateral security agreement No. 200 million won with the obligor on December 9, 1981, which is the maximum debt amount of 200 million won, respectively, on May 8, 1982, and cancelled each of the above collateral security agreement on June 10, 1983 between the applicant and the respondent, with the cancellation of the above collateral security agreement No. 2, the above joint and several surety agreement No. 4 as stated above between the applicant and the respondent on June 22, 1983, which is the joint and several surety agreement No. 1, No. 1,2 and No. 3, No. 1,126 of the above collateral Security Agreement, which is the object of the No. 1,1,160 regarding the establishment of the collateral Security Agreement.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the principal obligation against the applicant of the company other than the applicant secured by the above collateral security and the principal obligation against the applicant of the company other than the applicant secured by the above collateral security as separate obligations. Therefore, the applicant's cancellation of the above collateral security and cannot be deemed to have expired even before the respondent. Thus, the respondent's above argument is without merit.

Therefore, the applicant has the right to be compensated for the respondent, and further, there is a need to preserve the above rights in light of the overall situation shown in the case. Therefore, the decision of provisional seizure of this case is reasonable to maintain it, and therefore it is authorized, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)