[1] In a case where a legal act other than authority was done through a private person or a sub-agent voluntarily appointed by an agent, whether the basic power of attorney is defective in the application of Article 126 of the Civil Code (negative)

[2] The case rejecting the assertion of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code in consideration of the fact that the form or content of the agreement on the joint and several guarantee contract concluded by a monthly representation is an exceptional and accompanied by a certificate of seal impression for a vicarious issuance

[1] In a case where a legal act other than authority was done through a so-called agent or a sub-agent appointed by the agent, in a case where the other party believed the agent as an agent with the authority to appoint the sub-agent and there are justifiable grounds to believe such act, the authority of the sub-agent appointed by the agent without the authority to appoint the sub-agent may also be the basic authority. In addition, as long as the actor is a dead person, and there are separate agents who are the subject of the act of agent, and the basic authority was granted by the principal, the defect of the basic authority does not arise in the application of Article

[2] The case rejecting the assertion of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code in consideration of the fact that the form or content of the agreement is an exceptional and the certificate of the personal seal impression is attached to the joint and several guarantee agreement concluded by a monthly representation

[1] Article 126 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 126 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 66Da2197 decided Nov. 21, 1967 (Gong15-3, 314), Supreme Court Decision 84Meu780 decided Oct. 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1796) (Gong1988, 245) decided Dec. 8, 1987 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da9895 decided Jul. 8, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2455)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Park Young-hee et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na13285 delivered on September 24, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that it was difficult for the defendants to enter into the above joint and several surety insurance contract with the non-party 1 to obtain a loan from the above non-party 6 insurance solicitor, and that the non-party 1 knew that the above joint and several surety had been affixed to the non-party 2 to the non-party 0 and the non-party 2's joint and several surety's representative's right to enter into the above joint and several surety insurance contract with the non-party 6's name on behalf of the non-party 8's representative's name and the non-party 2's representative's name and the non-party 3's representative's name and delivery of the above joint and several surety insurance contract with the non-party 6's name and the non-party 2's name and the non-party 3's representative's name and delivery of the above joint and several surety insurance contract with the non-party 2's name and the defendant 3's representative's name and delivery of the above letter.

2. As to the violation of the rules of evidence

According to the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that rejected the present evidence that the defendant Cho Jae-in granted the right of representation for the conclusion of the joint and several surety contract of this case to the above co-defendant through the non-party 2 and 3, who is his agent, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

3. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the expression representation

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, although the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 are unauthorized representatives, they were used in entering into a joint and several surety contract in the name of the defendants among the above co-defendants of the court below or the non-party 3. The above co-defendants of the court below, the non-party 3 and the least leather et al. were involved in the preparation of the joint and several surety contract in the name of the defendants according to the intent of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2. Thus, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 expressed their intention by the method of signing the contract on behalf of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as a representative, and in such case, if the plaintiff, the counter-party co-defendants of the court below, believed the above co-defendants of the court below's authority as representative and there were no errors in the legal principles as to the above non-party 1's authority to appoint a sub-party 1 and the defendants' authority.

However, according to the records, the contract of installment sales guarantee submitted to the plaintiff company at the time of the conclusion of the contract of installment sales guarantee agreement of this case is written by the body of the same pen with most of the joint and several sureties including policyholders and the defendants' names, and in particular, it was cancelled immediately next to the name of the defendant Young-hee x the seal impression cancelled x all of the defendants' personal seal certificates submitted along with the above contract of this case were a personal seal impression for the issuance of a proxy. If the facts are identical, the contract documents of this case submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the transaction of this case are somewhat different from ordinary cases in light of the objective transaction concept, unlike ordinary cases in light of the objective transaction concept, the contract documents of this case which the plaintiff was submitted at the time of the transaction of this case can be seen as somewhat different form or contents. In addition, considering the fact that the amount of guarantee insurance of this case is large, the contents of the defendants' obligation to bear on the part of the guarantor's name and seal or the seal delivered for other purposes, it is reasonable to establish the guarantor's intention to directly obtain or signature and seal of this case.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff believed that the above installment sales guarantee agreement submitted to the plaintiff was just without taking any confirmation measures, and as seen above, the misapprehension of legal principles committed by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be viewed as an error of law as a legal scenario as to the same expression agency. The argument is without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)