Legal acts aiming at collateral of existing obligations prior to a contract for establishing a mortgage and expression by proxy beyond authority;

In establishing a right to collateral security with an agent's own property as a debtor and an agent's own property to hold as a collateral, if the aggregate amount of the existing debt to a third party of the agent and the additional debt borrowed at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security has been determined as a collateral obligation, the effect of

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Sang875 Decided June 12, 1958

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3919 delivered on May 2, 1980

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1193 Decided November 27, 1979 (Seoul High Court Decision 79Na646 Decided May 23, 1979)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

In a case where an agent (including a sub-agent) with a false authority borrowed money from another person as an obligor and a surety to secure another person's property and set up a collateral, if the principal borrowed money from another person and the principal borrowed money from another person at the time of the establishment of the principal as an agent at the time of the establishment of the principal, and the principal borrowed money from another person at the time of the establishment of the principal and the principal's establishment of the right to collateral, the principal's act of bearing debts and setting a extreme amount as an expression agent at the time of establishment of the principal's right to collateral is valid, the principal's act of bearing debts is the total amount of debts and the amount borrowed from the time of establishment of the principal at the time of establishment of the principal's right to collateral security (see Supreme Court Decision 4290Sang875 delivered on June 12, 58). The judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen in the records, or there is no error in the judgment of the court below.

This paper is without merit on the premise of the view contrary to the original judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The 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 Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)