The case holding that the act of land management cannot be a basic power of representation;

The fact that the land has been cultivated and managed is that it cannot be the basic power of representation in excess of his/her authority, and barring special circumstances, the management act alone cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason to believe that there is a right of representation to dispose of this land for himself/herself.

Article 126 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jinju Branch of Busan District Court (73Gahap18)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On January 24, 1972, the defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale with respect to the 194 Doo-ri 194 Doo-ri, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff's legal representative purchased the above land from the non-party 1 who is the defendant's agent on January 24, 1972 and paid the price in full. Even if the non-party did not have the right to dispose of this land on behalf of the defendant in the above sale, the non-party is a person who continuously cultivated and managed the land. Thus, the above sale becomes effective under the legal principle of expression agency in excess of his authority since it is difficult for the plaintiff to believe that the non-party had the right to dispose of this land on behalf of the defendant, and even if the above sale was a pure act of non-party's agent, it is hard to acknowledge that the defendant's right to dispose of this land on behalf of the non-party 1 on February 2, 1972, the non-party's right to dispose of this land on behalf of the defendant, and it is hard to recognize that the non-party 1 had the right to dispose of this land on behalf of the non-party 1 on the non-party 2's testimony and evidence No. 5. 1.

Next, with respect to the statement of expression representation by the Plaintiff’s attorney, the health stand;

Although Nonparty 1 has cultivated and managed this case’s land, it cannot be the basic power of attorney as referred to in the expression agency. Barring special circumstances, the management act alone cannot be said to constitute a justifiable reason to believe that there is a right of attorney to dispose of this case’s land on behalf of himself/herself. This argument is without merit.

Finally, as to the letter of ratification of the Plaintiff’s Attorney, the Health Unit;

The testimony of Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 5, which seems partially consistent with the above, is rejected by the party members in light of the evidence accepted above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the ratification.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed without due reason, the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, and thus, it is revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Choi Jong-ro (Presiding Judge)