Cases showing that a expressive representation is recognized;

The Plaintiff borrowed money from Nonparty 1 for a period of one year from Nonparty 2, and some of the money loaned to the Plaintiff was lent from Nonparty 2 to the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff was urged to repay from “B,” the Plaintiff delegated the Plaintiff’s business to “B” to “B” at the time of the Plaintiff’s establishment registration for the real estate owned by the Plaintiff by means of obtaining a grace period, and made the seals and certificates of personal seal impression necessary for the registration, and used the Plaintiff’s loan by borrowing money from “B” to “B” and borrowing money from the Plaintiff, it would constitute an expression agent exceeding his/her authority.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Samyang Co., Ltd. and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1257 delivered on July 20, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff borrowed money from the non-party 1 from the end of 1960 to the beginning of 1961, but the non-party 2,00,000 won (hereinafter the same shall apply) loaned money from the non-party 2 to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was granted a heavy demand from the above non-party 2, as a security for the above debt, the plaintiff was granted a grace period, and entrusted the non-party 1 with the right to enter into the mortgage contract with the non-party 2 as a security for the above debt, with the right to obtain a grace period, and made the seal and certificate necessary for drawing documents, and the non-party 1 did not appear to have been delegated to the non-party 2 as a representative for the non-party 2 to use money from the plaintiff's real estate at a remote place, and the above non-party 2 did not have a duty to establish a mortgage contract with the defendant as a representative for the non-party 1 to whom the plaintiff was given the right to represent the plaintiff 2.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The court below held that there is no evidence to see that the non-party 2 who signed the contract to establish the right to collateral security in this case ratified the act of the non-party 2, and it cannot be said that there is any contradiction in the reasons and reasons. Therefore, the argument is groundless

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

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court