Whether the defendant's husband "A" can be interpreted as the assertion of overlapping application of Article 129 and Article 126 of the Civil Act in a case where the defendant makes an assertion as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act on the ground that the plaintiff's husband "A" had a fact that he

In a case where the defendant, even before the plaintiff's husband "A", borrowed money from a third party and provisionally registered this real estate at that time, the plaintiff himself/herself shall be interpreted as the defendant who asserts the overlapping application of Articles 129 and 126 of the Civil Act on the ground that "A" is deemed to possess the certificate of seal impression, the certificate of seal impression, and the certificate of right, and that there was a justifiable reason for believing that "A" is acting on behalf of the wife, and that there was a justifiable reason for believe that there was an act of acting on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant shall be interpreted as the defendant who asserts the overlapping application of Articles 129 and 126 of the Civil Act.

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Chang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na2222 delivered on November 14, 1976

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to Defendant’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that, only if Nonparty 1 is the husband of the plaintiff and had his seal impression and right certificate, etc., it cannot be recognized that there was any right of representation against the above non-party, and even with the defendant's certificate of transfer, it cannot be recognized that there was any basic right of representation against the above non-party. Thus, the argument regarding the above expression representation by the defendant, which is premised on the fact that the non-party 1 had a right of representation on behalf of the plaintiff,

However, according to the previous purport of the oral argument (the statement in the oral argument dated May 23, 1975), the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff's husband, who was the non-party 2 before the plaintiff's husband, and registered this real estate in the future of the non-party 2, even before the plaintiff's husband. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff himself and the non-party 1 provided the real estate as security to the plaintiff who was his wife at his own discretion, the defendant who acquired this real estate was the husband's seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression and the certificate of personal rights, and was believed to act on behalf of the plaintiff himself, and there was a justifiable reason in trust. In addition, the defendant did not assert that the defendant did not have the right of representation as provided in Article 129 of the Civil Act and Article 126 of the Civil Act on the ground that there was an act of representation exceeding the authority of representation as provided in Article 129 of the Civil Act and there was no further reason to interpret that the defendant did not have the right of representation as provided in the above Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kang Jin-hee (Presiding Justice)