[1] In a case where a person with parental authority, who is a legal representative of a minor, knew or could have known the other party that his act was in breach of trust for the benefit of a person with parental authority or a third party against his/her own interest, whether the effect of the act does not extend to the person (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a legal representative Gap sold land owned by Eul on behalf of a minor Eul, Byung on behalf of a minor, Eul, and Byung, the case affirming the judgment below that the contract was not effective against Eul and Byung on the ground that the other party to the contract was aware or could have known of the abuse of power of representation

[1] In a case where a true expression of intention is made by an agent and the other party knew or could have known that the intention of the agent was in breach of trust for the benefit of himself/herself or a third party against his/her own interest or will, he/she shall not be held liable for the act of the agent under an analogical interpretation under the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act. It shall be reasonably determined based on objective circumstances, such as the process and contents of the formation of a declaration of intention between the agent and the other party, and the effects arising therefrom. The same applies to the juristic act of the person with parental authority, who is a minor, as well as the juristic act of the person with parental authority. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of the agent, who is a legal representative, only causes economic losses to the minor, while the act of the legal representative, is causing economic benefits to the person with parental authority or the third party, and if the other party knew or could have known such fact, it does not affect the person (self) by analogy applying the proviso of Article 107

[2] In a case where a legal representative Gap sold land owned by Eul on behalf of a minor Eul, Byung, and Byung to Byung, the case affirming the judgment below holding that it does not affect the validity of the sales contract to Eul, Eul, and Byung, on the ground that the legal representative Gap was aware or could have known at the time of the sales contract that it was an abuse of the right of representation made solely for the benefit of Eul, Byung, and third parties, disregarding the principal Eul's interest, and that it was an abuse of the right of representation made for the benefit of Eul and third parties

[1] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20694 decided Jan. 19, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 504)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Cho & Yang, Attorneys Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Love, Attorneys Lee Byung-hun et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Na26919 decided June 29, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where the other party knew or could have known that the other party's expression of intention was made by an agent and the intention of the agent was in breach of trust for the benefit of himself or a third party against the principal's interest or will, the principal cannot be held liable for the act of the agent under an analogical interpretation of the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act. Whether the other party knew or could have known that the other party was not the intention of representation should be reasonably determined based on objective circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20694 delivered on January 19, 201, etc.).

In addition, the same applies to a legal act of a person with parental authority, who is a legal representative of a minor. Thus, when the representative act of a person with parental authority objectively leads to an economic loss to the minor himself/herself, while the representative act of a person with parental authority or a third party brings economic loss to the minor, and when the other party to the act knew or could have known such fact, it is reasonable to interpret that the effect of the act does not extend to the person with parental authority by analogical application of the proviso of

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the sales contract of this case was an abuse of authority by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who was the legal representative, solely for the benefit of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, which is the legal representative, as follows: ① even based on Defendant’s own statement, the sales contract of this case was concluded on August 14, 2009 on the day without confirming at all the copy of the register or contract of this case’s land’s entry into a contract with Nonparty 3, which was within KRW 100,000,000,000, which was about KRW 80,000,000,000, which was about KRW 50,000,000,000 at the time of this case’s purchase and sale, which was about KRW 15,50,000,000,000,000,000.

The above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on abuse of power of representation.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)