An expression beyond authority

If the non-party holds all documents necessary for the disposition of this case, such as a certificate of the personal seal impression affixed to the defendant's right to the registration of this case, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant granted to the non-party the right to the disposal of this case

Article 125 of the Civil Act, Article 126 of the Civil Act

June 28, 1966, 66Da872 decided Jun. 28, 196 (Civil Law Article 126(38), 250 pages 1310)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Suwon District Court (81 Gohap207, 81 Gohap341)

All appeals are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter the plaintiff) is the purport of the principal lawsuit, and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter the defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter the defendant) is the plaintiff on March 13, 1980, based on the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer due to the trade reservation, which was received by the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Registry on March 13, 1980, for the plaintiff, on the basis of the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer due to the trade reservation.

The court costs shall be borne by the defendant. The defendant is the purport of the counterclaim, and the plaintiff will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the above provisional registration.

The court costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

The defendant shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's dismissal of the principal lawsuit and the judgment as stated in the purport of the counterclaim

According to the above statement No. 1 and 2 of evidence No. 1, the defendant's statement that the provisional registration has been made in the name of the plaintiff as to the real estate stated in the separate list owned by the defendant (hereinafter the real estate of this case) with no dispute over the above establishment. The plaintiff's request for counter-registration is that the above provisional registration was made without any legitimate authority and is invalid. Thus, the defendant's request for counter-registration is for the execution of the cancellation registration procedure. Thus, the above provisional registration No. 3 (Registration Right), No. 4-2 (Evidence No. 1), No. 5-1, No. 3 (No. 6), No. 6-2 (No. 1), and No. 6-2 (No. 6-2), and the defendant's statement that the above provisional registration had been delivered to the non-party 1 as to the non-party 1's right to the above real estate as security, and the defendant's statement that the above provisional registration had been delivered to the non-party 2's testimony.

According to the above facts, although the non-party 1 entered into the above contract with the defendant and was not authorized by the plaintiff to make a pre-sale and provisional registration on the real estate of this case in the plaintiff's future, the right of representation was granted to the non-party 2 to postpone the exercise of the security right according to the time limit for payment for the borrowed money from the non-party 2, and the non-party 1 borrowed the money from the non-party 2 on behalf of the defendant and made a provisional registration on the real estate of this case for the security of this case on behalf of the defendant, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff had any documents necessary to dispose of the real estate of this case, such as the defendant's registration certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, and certificate of seal imprint, and that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the non-party 1 can make the above pre-sale and provisional registration on the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the above pre-sale and provisional registration shall revert to the defendant as the principal under the legal principles of expression agency.

Therefore, in this case where it seems that the defendant expressed his intention to complete the pre-sale on the day following the above maturity date, in order to enforce the security right, the defendant is obligated to perform the principal registration procedure based on the above provisional registration. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit in this case shall be justified and accepted, and the defendant's claim for counterclaim shall be dismissed by unjust means. The defendant's claim for counterclaim cannot be asserted in relation to the plaintiff who is the third party, unless the non-party 1 deceivings the defendant and there is no other argument as to the other circumstances, the original judgment in this conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs

Judges Lee Young-tae (Presiding Judge)